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 |
JWT header shape, payload discarded
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that the timestamp is current. It does not disclose the output format (e.g., ISO 8601 vs epoch), precision, whether parameters affect the result, or any side-effect profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with no wasted words. However, it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate economy, omitting essential behavioral details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a trivial time tool this could be sufficient, but the mismatched input schema and lack of output format details make the description incomplete. An agent cannot determine the return shape or whether the irrelevant-looking parameters matter.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the four parameters (url, host, json, zone) appear to belong to sibling tools and are unrelated to UTC time. The description fails to explain whether these parameters are accepted, ignored, or somehow alter the timestamp, creating confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Current UTC timestamp" clearly states the tool returns the current UTC time. It lacks a verb and doesn't specify output format, but it is unambiguous and easily distinguishable from its unrelated siblings (citation, domain-shape, json-validate, etc.).
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 on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives is provided. The description gives no context for selecting utc-time over any other approach to getting time.
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
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.
Naming Consistency2/5
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.
Tool Count4/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.