Server time
server_timeReturns the current server time (ISO 8601, UTC).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
server_timeReturns the current server time (ISO 8601, UTC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately conveys that this is a read-only retrieval operation ('returns') and specifies the output format and timezone (ISO 8601, UTC), which is valuable behavioral context.
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 provides complete information without any filler. 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?
For a zero-parameter utility with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it states what the tool returns and the exact format of that return value. No additional context is needed for an agent to call it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately confirms that calling the tool requires no 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the current server time in ISO 8601 UTC format. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings add and echo, which perform unrelated operations.
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 makes the intended use clear: call this tool whenever the current server time is needed. There are no time-related sibling tools requiring exclusions, so no explicit alternative guidance is necessary.
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.
Each tool performs a clearly distinct operation: arithmetic addition, text echoing, and time retrieval. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming is inconsistent: 'add' and 'echo' are imperative verbs, while 'server_time' uses a noun_underscore pattern. There is no unifying verb_noun or resource-based convention.
Three tools is a reasonable small count, but the tools are unrelated and do not form a cohesive service. The count feels arbitrary rather than purposefully scoped.
There is no clear domain or common purpose—'webEmbedding' suggests perhaps embedding functionality, but the tools are unrelated utilities. No coherent workflow can be inferred, making completeness impossible to satisfy.