Current time in a named IANA timezone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup but does not state that passing url, host, or json would be ignored or inappropriate, nor does it describe output format or edge cases like invalid zone names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence and is front-loaded with the core behavior. However, it is so terse that it omits essential disambiguation about which schema parameter to use, making brevity a liability here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a schema polluted with unrelated parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot reliably determine the correct invocation — it needs explicit direction that only 'zone' is relevant and some indication of the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is 100%, three of the four parameter descriptions (url: 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', host: 'Public hostname', json: 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check') describe functionality unrelated to a timezone tool. The description only loosely maps to the zone parameter and does nothing to clarify that the other parameters are extraneous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' states a specific result and resource — it clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings 'unix' and 'utc', which are also time-related, so an agent must infer the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus its time-related siblings. The mismatched schema — containing url, host, and json parameters that belong to other tools — makes it harder, not easier, for an agent to figure out which parameters apply to a timezone lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools fall into overlapping clusters: citation and normalize-url both process URLs, while timezone, utc-time, and unix-now all report current time. The descriptions clarify the exact output of each, but an agent could still struggle to pick between them without careful reading.
All names are lowercase and hyphenated, giving a consistent visual style. However, the pattern mixes noun phrases (citation, status-catalog, unix-now) with verb-noun imperatives (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), so there is no single predictable naming convention.
Eleven tools is within the typical well-scoped range and each utility has a narrow function. The count itself is reasonable, although the server name suggests a time-focused purpose while many tools are actually web/URL utilities.
The set covers common stateless operations: current time, timezone lookups, URL inspection, robots, and JSON validation. Notable gaps include epoch-to-human timestamp conversion and a way to fetch or inspect HTTP response details beyond status, which would be expected in a general utility server.