MCP Web Utilities Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns current date-time (implying real-time data), specifies UTC and local formats, and details the exact return structure. However, it does not mention potential issues like timezone dependencies or performance characteristics, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the subsequent lines provide essential return format details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by adding value (e.g., clarifying ISO format and structure).

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, simple output), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, the return format, and includes an output schema implicitly in the description. No additional context is needed for such a straightforward utility tool.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately focuses on output. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description efficiently handles this by not discussing inputs.

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 with specific verbs ('Returns') and resources ('current UTC and local date-time strings'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools (which are web-related, while this is a date/time utility). It goes beyond just restating the name by specifying the format and content of the return values.

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 implies usage context through the return format details (e.g., when ISO format date-time strings are needed), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Given the sibling tools are unrelated (web fetching/searching), no direct comparison is needed, but general guidance is lacking.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.