Current time in a named IANA timezone.
| 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 |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Current time') but does not state the output format, behavior for invalid timezone names, or why the schema contains three unrelated parameters.
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 sentence with no filler, and the core message is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an exemplar of conciseness.
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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a schema with three unrelated parameters and zero required fields. The description does not explain return format, error cases, or the role of the extra parameters, so it is incomplete for reliable invocation.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'zone' is the meaningful parameter but adds nothing about how to use url, host, or json, leaving their relevance unexplained.
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 clearly identifies the tool's function: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It is specific enough to be distinguished from siblings like 'utc-time' and 'iana-zones', though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'returns'.
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 on when to use this tool instead of the siblings, nor which parameter (zone) should be supplied. The description also fails to warn that the unrelated url, host, and json parameters are not relevant to the tool's purpose.
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.
Several tools overlap in the URL/host/status space: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all return host-like information, and compatibility is vague. The descriptions help separate them, but an agent could still misselect when looking for a specific URL metric.
Names mix single-word nouns like citation and timezone, noun phrases like domain-shape and status-catalog, and verb-led names like normalize-url and validate-json. All use kebab-case, but there is no consistent verb/noun pattern across the set.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server. Most tools have narrow, distinct purposes, though a few time-related and URL-related tools feel somewhat redundant.
The set covers URL normalization, JSON/JWT inspection, robots, HTTP status, and time utilities, but the lack of a single cohesive domain leaves noticeable gaps. For example, there is no generic URL validation, no HTTP header inspection, and the compatibility tool is underspecified.