get_datetimeReturn the current UTC date and time. Optional strftime format parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | strftime format string for the output | %Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S UTC |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iso8601 | Yes | ||
| datetime | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / format / titleAdded value: +"Format"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"mcp_get_datetimeArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe read-only nature. The description adds the important context that the time is in UTC, which is a meaningful behavioral detail. No other behavioral traits are disclosed, but none are expected for such a simple tool.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core function and mentions the optional parameter. 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?
Given the low complexity, presence of an output schema, and the read-only annotation, the description is complete. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers that.
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 fully documents the 'format' parameter with a default and description (100% coverage). The description only says 'Optional strftime format parameter' which adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'current UTC date and time', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools as the only datetime-related tool among crypto-focused siblings.
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?
No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Since there are no obvious alternatives, this is a minor gap, but the description does not explicitly state usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct data sources, but several near-duplicates exist: get_token_approvals/get_wallet_approvals, get_defi_positions/get_wallet_positions, and get_wallet_portfolio/get_eth_balance. The descriptions do cross-reference and clarify the differences, so an agent can disambiguate with effort, but names alone are not enough.
The dominant get_<noun> pattern is clear and nearly all names use lowercase snake_case with verb-first conventions. A few tools like calculate, record_predictions, http_fetch, and web_search break the get_ pattern, but the overall style remains predictable.
34 tools is excessive for a single server, even for a broad DeFi/onchain analytics domain. The count is inflated by generic utilities such as calculate, count_text_stats, web_search, and http_fetch, plus multiple overlapping data-retrieval endpoints, making the surface hard to scan.
The set covers an unusually wide range of domain operations: prices, balances, portfolio/positions, approvals, yields, TVL, DEX quotes/volume, transactions, blocks, gas, ENS, contract reads, and risk assessments. It is view-only by design, so missing write/transaction tools is acceptable; minor gaps like address-based token pricing or transaction simulation are workaround-able.