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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists the returned fields (local datetime, UTC, unix epoch, offset, DST, etc.), indicating a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety or limitations. The provided detail is adequate for a simple time tool.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states the core function, second lists outputs. There is no fluff, though a more structured layout could improve readability.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and outputs, but lacks usage guidance and does not describe the output format or error handling. Without an output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.
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 description does not need to add much. It mentions 'timezone' in the purpose but provides no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions for 'format' and 'timezone'.
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's purpose: 'Get the current time in any timezone'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools (get_astronomy, get_moon_phases) which address 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are listed but not compared, leaving the agent without direction for selection.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: get_astronomy handles daily sun/moon times, get_current_time provides current time in any timezone, and get_moon_phases covers moon phases and illumination. There is no functional overlap.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'get_<noun>' with snake_case, making the naming predictable and readable.
With only three tools, the server is lean but covers core time and astronomy queries. The count is at the lower end of reasonable, but not overly thin.
The toolkit covers essential time and astronomy needs (current time, sun/moon times, moon phases), but lacks time zone conversion, planetary data, or specific date queries for astronomy events, representing minor gaps.