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. It discloses the core behavior—returning current time for an IANA zone—which suggests a read-only operation. But it does not describe the output format, behavior on invalid zone names, or whether any of the other schema parameters are ignored or meaningful.
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 phrase with no filler. Every word contributes meaning and directly communicates the tool's purpose.
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 description is minimally viable but leaves gaps: there is no output schema, so return format is unspecified; the schema exposes unrelated parameters (url, host, json) and the description does not clarify that only zone is relevant; and the relationship to sibling tools like utc-time is left implicit.
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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond echoing 'IANA timezone,' which maps to the existing zone parameter description.
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 time for a named IANA timezone. It is specific about the resource and distinguishes implicitly from siblings like utc-time and iana-zones, though it does not name them or explicitly contrast 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?
Usage context is implied: an agent should use this when it needs the current time in a specific IANA timezone. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer timezone over utc-time or iana-zones, and no mention of what to do with the unrelated schema parameters.
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.
A few clusters overlap—citation and normalize-url both analyze URLs, and timezone and utc-time both provide current time—but the descriptions generally make the intended output clear. The vague 'compatibility' tool adds some ambiguity, but no tools are truly indistinguishable.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, but the naming pattern is mixed: some are verb-noun (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json), while others are noun compounds (domain-shape, status-catalog) or single nouns (citation, timezone). This is readable but not predictably consistent.
11 tools is within the reasonable 3-15 range and each tool has a distinct purpose. However, the set spans URL inspection, time, UUID, JSON, and HTTP status, so it feels slightly broader than the server name implies.
For a shape and inspection utility server, the main categories are covered: URL normalization, robots.txt inspection, HTTP status, timezone lookup, current time, JSON validation, and UUID shape checking. Minor gaps exist like redirect chains or JSON schema validation, but the core surface is not severely incomplete.