utc-time
Current UTC timestamp.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name |
HTTP 404 not-found
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
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, and it fails. It does not state whether the call is read-only, what output format to expect, or what the four accepted parameters actually do to the result. The behavior of the tool with respect to url, host, json, and zone is completely undisclosed, leaving the agent to guess whether passing these values changes the returned timestamp.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three words is under-specification, not conciseness. The brevity omits all information about the four parameters, the output format, and the relationship to sibling tools. Unlike efficient two-sentence definitions that front-load scope, this one provides no usable structure for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema cannot be adequately specified in three words. The description fails to explain why the parameters exist, what the return value looks like, or how this tool differs from the closely related 'timezone' and 'iana-zones' siblings. The input contract and the stated purpose appear to describe two different tools, and nothing in the description resolves the gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the schema descriptions describe behaviors (URL normalization, JSON validation, IANA timezone names) that have no evident connection to the stated purpose of returning the current UTC time. The description adds no clarification about which parameters are relevant or whether they are ignored, so an agent cannot determine whether passing 'url' or 'zone' affects the result.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Current UTC timestamp' does state the tool's output with a specific resource, so the basic purpose is identifiable. However, the input schema defines four parameters (url, host, json, zone) that describe capabilities entirely unrelated to reading a UTC clock, and the description never reconciles this mismatch. An agent cannot tell whether this tool actually normalizes URLs, validates JSON, or returns time based on a zone, making the purpose incoherent with the input contract.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool. The sibling list includes 'timezone' and 'iana-zones', which an agent could easily confuse with a UTC-time tool, and the description draws no boundary or selection condition among them. The three-word text implies 'use when you need the current UTC time' but provides no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct outputs, but there is real overlap: http-404 is a subset of status-catalog, timezone overlaps utc-time, and citation/normalize-url/domain-shape all parse URLs in slightly different ways. The descriptions clarify intended uses, so an agent can usually pick correctly, but the boundaries are not crisp.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names are all lowercase kebab-case, which provides a surface-level consistency, but the structural pattern is mixed: single nouns, noun-noun compounds, and imperative verb-noun forms. This makes the naming scheme less predictable than a uniform verb_noun or noun-based convention.
Tool Count3/5
Eleven tools is within a reasonable numeric range, but the set is not tightly scoped: URL/HTTP tools are mixed with timezone, JSON, and compatibility tools. A more focused HTTP utility server could easily justify fewer or more cohesive tools.
Completeness2/5
The inferred domain is URL/HTTP inspection, and the set covers normalization, status codes, and robots, but it lacks obvious related operations such as HTTP headers, redirects, or URL decoding. The presence of unrelated time and JSON tools makes the surface feel arbitrary rather than deliberately complete.