Return the current local time for a country when you provide its name, such as Korea, Japan, USA, or France. Use it to check the time in a specific country.
나라 이름을 입력하면 해당 나라의 현재 시간을 반환합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | 현재 시간을 조회할 나라 이름 (예: Korea, Japan, USA, France) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | 현재 시간 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool returns 'current time' but does not disclose timezone semantics (local country time vs UTC), DST handling, behavior for unrecognized country names, or whether any external lookup/rate limit is involved.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the input condition precedes the outcome. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than tight precision.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained. However, with zero annotations and no timezone or error-handling notes, the definition is only minimally adequate for an agent to call it with confidence.
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% and the single 'country' parameter already documents the expected value with examples (Korea, Japan, USA, France). The description adds no format, aliasing, or casing guidance beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb+resource: given a country name, it returns that country's current time. That is clearly distinct from greet/calc/generate-image/search_articles, though it does not explicitly separate itself from the location-flavored sibling get-weather. Clear but without sibling differentiation, so a 4.
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 sentence only restates the input→output relationship; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against get-weather, which is the obvious alternative for location-keyed queries. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.