timeReads the current date and clock from a connected Android or iOS device, with optional device targeting.
The device clock.
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": "time"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, whether permissions are needed, or what the result represents.
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?
It is very short and front-loaded, but the single sentence is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its place because it conveys almost no actionable information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool with an undocumented optional parameter and no annotations, the description is too incomplete to guide correct invocation.
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 schema has one parameter ('device') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. An agent cannot tell what the parameter does or whether it is required.
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 'The device clock' names a resource but no action, so it does not clearly state whether the tool reads, sets, or otherwise uses the device clock. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title with a minor qualifier.
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?
There is no guidance at all on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tools might be alternatives. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.