Get the current time in any timezone. Returns local datetime, UTC datetime, unix epoch, UTC offset, DST status, day of week, day of year, and week number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Response format: iso (datetime only), unix (epoch only), both (default) | both |
| timezone | No | IANA timezone name (e.g. America/New_York, Europe/London, Asia/Tokyo). Defaults to UTC. | UTC |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the return fields (datetimes, unix, offset, DST, etc.) but does not mention potential issues like timezone validation or rate limits. Still, it gives good transparency for a simple read operation.
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 followed by a clear list of return fields. No fluff; every part adds value.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description thoroughly enumerates all return fields. Parameters are well-covered. Combined with sibling context, the tool is fully understandable.
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%. The description adds value by explaining the format options and specifying IANA timezone names, but the schema already defines them with defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool gets current time in any timezone and lists specific returned fields. It is distinct from siblings get_astronomy and get_moon_phases which are in different domains.
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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are astronomy-related, making context clear. No exclusions or alternative guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.