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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Current time' reasonably implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose that output varies between calls or that the other schema fields may be ignored.
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 with zero 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 simple time lookup, the description is mostly adequate, but the schema's unrelated optional parameters (url, host, json) with no required fields create ambiguity about correct invocation. The description does not clarify which parameter to use or what happens if none are provided.
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 maps to the 'zone' parameter via 'IANA timezone name', but adds no detail beyond the schema. It also leaves ambiguous whether url/host/json are relevant to this tool or belong to sibling behaviors.
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 resource and action: 'Current time in a named IANA timezone.' This clearly conveys what the tool does and is distinct enough from siblings like citation, normalize-url, and validate-json, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The only usage signal is implied by the tool name and purpose description.
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 clearly separate concerns, but citation and normalize-url both operate on URLs and can both return host/scheme information, which may create selection ambiguity. The time and status tools are distinct enough given their descriptions.
All names are lowercase hyphenated, which is readable, but the set mixes verb-led names like inspect-robots and normalize-url with noun-led names like citation and status-catalog, plus odd constants like lang-en. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern.
11 tools is within a reasonable range for a utility server, though several are single-purpose constants such as lang-en and utc-time that add some bulk. The count is not excessive or too thin.
The domain appears to be privacy-preserving read-only helpers, and it covers basic URL, time, HTTP status, robots, and JSON validation needs. However, there are notable gaps like timezone conversion, HTTP status details beyond a catalog, and the opaque compatibility and lang-en tools do not form a clear workflow.