Current UTC timestamp for autonomous clients.
| 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, but it only states the output. It does not explain what happens when url, host, json, or zone are supplied, or whether they are ignored, rejected, or used.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation, though the phrase 'for autonomous clients' adds limited practical value.
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?
Even though the core operation is simple, the tool has four optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description must clarify how those parameters relate to the result. It does not, leaving an agent unsure whether to pass a zone, URL, or no arguments at all.
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 each parameter already has a definition, which sets a neutral baseline. The description adds no parameter guidance, and the parameters appear unrelated to a timestamp operation, but the schemas themselves are self-explanatory.
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 states the tool returns the current UTC timestamp, which is specific and unambiguous. It lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast with the sibling 'timezone' tool, but the resource is clearly identified.
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 utc-time versus timezone, iana-zones, or other siblings. The description implies a use case but provides no exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria.
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.
utc-time, timezone, and iana-zones all occupy overlapping time/zone territory, while citation and normalize-url both inspect URLs. compatibility is vague and hard to distinguish from HTTP/status-related tools, making tool selection genuinely ambiguous.
Names consistently use lowercase hyphenation, but they mix noun-only labels like timezone and status-catalog with verb-led names like normalize-url and inspect-robots. The pattern is readable but not truly consistent.
Ten tools is a moderate count, but the server's stated purpose as a UTC clock only justifies roughly three of them. The remaining URL, robots, HTTP, and JSON tools make the set feel inflated and off-purpose.
For a clock server, utc-time, timezone, and iana-zones cover basics but omit timezone conversion, offsets, and DST details. For the broader utility surface implied by the other tools, there are major gaps and no coherent workflow.