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 full burden. It states the operation is a time lookup, implying read-only behavior, but it does not disclose the return format (e.g., ISO 8601 vs. local time), error behavior for invalid zone names, or whether the time is derived from the system clock or a data source. These are meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is an 8-word single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler. It earns a 4, not a 5, because the schema mismatch is significant enough that a slightly longer description mentioning the relevant parameter would have been more valuable than extreme brevity.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a schema polluted with three unrelated parameters, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine the return format, error handling, or which parameters are valid to pass without external knowledge. The one-liner identifies the tool's purpose but leaves the invocation contract dangerously underspecified.
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 coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the schema contains four parameters where url, host, and json are clearly unrelated to time (descriptions reference 'normalize or cite', 'Public hostname', and 'JSON text to validate'). The description says 'named IANA timezone,' which aligns only with the zone parameter, but it does not warn the agent that the other three parameters are irrelevant, creating real confusion risk for tool invocation.
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 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' clearly identifies the action (return current time) and the resource (a named IANA timezone). It is distinct from every sibling tool name (citation, compatibility, normalize, inspect, validate), none of which suggest time-related functionality. The verb is implied rather than explicit ('get'), and 'named' adds a slight scope qualifier, so it falls just short of a 5.
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, no exclusions, and no conditions are stated. The description provides no routing information beyond the tool's inherent purpose, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name and one-liner alone.
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 a distinct shape or check, but `citation` and `normalize-url` both return URL host/scheme information, and `timezone`/`utc-time` overlap enough to cause occasional misselection. Overall, tool descriptions clarify the intended purpose in most cases.
All tool names are lowercase and hyphenated, which is a consistent casing convention. The mix of noun-style names like `citation` and verb-object names like `validate-json` is a minor semantic inconsistency but not a confusing one.
With 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a lightweight utility server. Some reference-style helpers like `status-catalog` and `iana-zones` could be consolidated, but the set is not bloated.
The set covers URL, time, phone, JSON, and robots shape checks, but the broad 'shape' theme suggests notable gaps such as email or IP address shape validation and timezone conversion. These omissions are workable but could cause agent dead ends.