Time MCP Server

get_current_time

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the current time in a specified IANA timezone or UTC to answer time-sensitive queries accurately.

Instructions

Get current time in a specific timezone

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_current_time"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`utc`	No	Return UTC instead of the local or explicitly supplied timezone.
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone name (e.g., 'America/New_York', 'Europe/London'). Optional: defaults to the server's local timezone, 'Etc/UTC', when omitted.	Etc/UTC

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`is_dst`	Yes
`datetime`	Yes
`timezone`	Yes
`day_of_week`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2026.11.11Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., how the utc flag interacts with timezone, or precision/format of the returned timestamp), so it neither helps nor contradicts.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single well-formed sentence with the key qualifier (timezone) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it forgoes the small amount of routing information a sibling set like this warrants.

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

Completeness4/5

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

This is a trivial, zero-required-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. The only real gap is disambiguation from get_time_ago and convert_time.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the timezone and utc parameters are already fully documented with defaults and an IANA example. The description only echoes "a specific timezone" and says nothing about the utc boolean or how it overrides timezone, so a baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

"Get current time in a specific timezone" states a specific verb (get), resource (current time), and scope (a timezone). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the siblings get_time_ago or convert_time, which an agent must disambiguate unaided.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the wording "current time" suggests a now-lookup rather than elapsed-time or conversion, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no mention of the sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server