Time MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format, whether it includes date components, precision (seconds/milliseconds), or error handling for invalid timezones. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word 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 time retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe the return value format or error behavior. Given the low complexity, it's acceptable but could be more complete by specifying what 'current time' means in terms of format.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'timezone' parameter with IANA format examples and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'current time' with the specific scope 'in a specific timezone'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'convert_time' by focusing on current time retrieval rather than conversion between timezones. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it returns the current time for the given timezone, which would make it a perfect 5.

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 when needing current time in a particular timezone, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling 'convert_time'. No guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or alternative approaches is provided. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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