mcp-stargazing

get_local_datetime_info

Retrieve the server environment's current datetime and local timezone to establish a time reference for stargazing calculations.

Instructions

Retrieve the current datetime and timezone.

Use when: you need the server environment's current time and local timezone. Do not use when: you need time at a remote observing site or already have its timezone. Requires: no inputs; local means the server environment, not the user's observing site. Follow-up: use the observing site's explicit time_zone in celestial and plan_stargazing_session requests; do not infer it from the server timezone.

Returns: Dict with keys "data", "_meta". "data" contains "current_time" (ISO string).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it says there are no inputs, clarifies that 'local' means the server environment, and describes the return shape. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but 'Retrieve' strongly implies that for this simple tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then organized into Use when / Do not use when / Requires / Follow-up / Returns. Every section adds useful routing or behavioral context without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter datetime tool, the description covers purpose, appropriate and inappropriate use, input expectations, the key semantic caveat, follow-up behavior, and return structure. An output schema exists, but the description remains complete without relying on it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description correctly states 'no inputs.' Per the zero-parameter baseline, this is adequate and leaves little else to explain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve the current datetime and timezone. It also disambiguates the meaning of 'local' as the server environment rather than the user's observing site, which separates it from celestial/session-planning siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, plus a follow-up warning not to infer observing-site timezone from this result. The boundary against remote-site timing and plan_stargazing_session usage is clear.

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