mcp-server-devutils

Does 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 states the tool 'Get[s] the current time' but doesn't specify if this is based on system time, server time, or UTC, nor does it mention potential latency, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves key behavioral traits unclear.

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: 'Get the current time in multiple formats.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds value by specifying 'multiple formats.' There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output formats, timezone handling, or behavioral traits. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it only mentions 'multiple formats' vaguely, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no parameters are required by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't mislead about 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 'Get the current time in multiple formats' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current time'), and specifies the output characteristic ('multiple formats'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'timestamp_to_iso' or 'iso_to_timestamp' by focusing on the current time rather than conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like needing real-time timestamps for logging or comparisons, or when to prefer this over tools like 'timestamp_to_iso' for specific formats. With siblings available for time-related operations, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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