Get current time in specified timezone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timezone_name | No | Timezone name (e.g., UTC, EST, PST, JST) | UTC |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| time | Yes | ||
| datetime | Yes | ||
| timezone | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes | ||
| utc_offset | Yes | ||
| day_of_week | Yes | ||
| day_of_year | Yes |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the core function but omits details like time source (system clock or service), return format (ISO 8601? timestamp?), or potential delays. However, an output schema exists (not shown here but indicated), which likely documents the return structure. The description is minimally adequate for a simple read-only tool.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without fluff.
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 tool with one optional parameter, an existing output schema, and a simple read operation, the description is largely complete. It covers the essential purpose and the parameter's role. A minor improvement could be noting the default timezone (UTC) explicitly, but the schema already specifies it. Overall, it meets the needs for this low-complexity tool.
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% (the parameter 'timezone_name' has a description with examples). The description adds 'specified timezone,' which matches the parameter but does not provide additional semantic depth beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for full coverage.
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 'Get current time in specified timezone' clearly states the action (get current time) and the resource (time in a specific timezone). It distinguishes from siblings like get_now (which likely returns current time in local/UTC without timezone input) and convert_timezone (which requires an existing time to convert). The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many time-related siblings (get_now, convert_timezone, etc.), an agent would benefit from a brief note like 'Use this for getting the current time in a non-UTC timezone; for UTC, use get_now.' Without such, the agent must infer usage from the input schema 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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple random generators (random_integer, random_number), duplicate hashing functions (hash_md5, md5_checksum), and near-identical tools (compare, compare_2, compare_decimals). The sheer number of tools and lack of clear boundaries make it difficult for an agent to differentiate.
Naming is highly inconsistent. There are duplicate tools with different names (camel_case vs to_camel_case, slug vs slugify), arbitrary suffixes like '_2', and mixing of patterns (e.g., generate_password vs password_entropy). No clear convention is followed.
With 572 tools, the server is massively overpopulated for any coherent purpose. It includes trivial endpoints (true_endpoint, null, hello_world) and numerous duplicates, far exceeding a well-scoped utility set.
While the server covers many domains (math, strings, dates, colors, etc.), the presence of duplicate and trivial tools indicates a lack of thoughtful curation. There are gaps in basic operations (e.g., no dedicated file or network tools), and many tools are redundant.
