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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the result and does not disclose what happens for invalid zone names, whether url/host/json are ignored, the output format, or whether the time is fetched live from a system clock.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the essential idea in six words and earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only time lookup, the description is close to minimally viable, but the absence of an output schema, no mention of error behavior for invalid zones, and the presence of four apparently unrelated optional parameters leave moderate ambiguity. It is adequate but not complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, yielding a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that zone is the meaningful parameter, but it does not add details about formatting or the irrelevance of url/host/json beyond implication.
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 clearly identifies the operation ('current time') and the target resource ('named IANA timezone'), and it is distinct enough from the sibling utc-time by implying timezone-specific lookup. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with utc-time or iana-zones, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The wording implies the appropriate use case — retrieving the current time for a specific IANA timezone — but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over utc-time or how to handle the unrelated optional schema parameters. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is provided.
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 overlap heavily: citation, normalize-url, and url-host all return host information for URLs, differing only in extra fields. timezone and utc-time both provide current time, and iana-zones is closely related. compatibility is vague and could be confused with citation or status-catalog.
Names mix conventions inconsistently: some use verb_noun (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are noun-like (citation, compatibility, timezone) or noun-noun (url-host, status-catalog, iana-zones). The pattern is not predictable, making it harder to anticipate related tools.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server, but the scope is scattered across URL handling, timezones, JSON validation, and HTTP status codes. The count is not extreme, yet the tools feel less like a cohesive set and more like an arbitrary collection.
The stated domain is unclear—URL host utilities are mixed with unrelated time and validation helpers, so complete coverage is impossible to assess. For URL tools, there are multiple overlapping operations but no clear lifecycle; for time, there is no conversion or formatting beyond current time. Significant gaps exist for any single coherent purpose.