Get current date and time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tz | No | Timezone (UTC, America/New_York, etc.) | UTC |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| utc | Yes | ||
| hour | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| month | Yes | ||
| minute | Yes | ||
| second | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes | ||
| day_of_week | Yes | ||
| day_of_year | Yes | ||
| timestamp_ms | 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 must fully convey behavior. It only states the basic purpose, omitting details like timezone handling (despite 'tz' parameter), output format, and whether it returns a string or object. The default timezone behavior is unmentioned.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. However, it sacrifices important details for brevity. While concise, it is arguably too sparse for a tool with a parameter and no annotations.
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 the tool has one optional parameter and no annotations, the description should provide more context (e.g., return format, timezone handling). An output schema exists, but the description doesn't leverage it. The tool is simple, but the description is still incomplete.
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?
The description does not mention the 'tz' parameter, but the input schema already provides a clear description ('Timezone (UTC, America/New_York, etc.)') and a default value. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 date and time.' clearly states the action and resource, but it is very minimal and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'current_time' or 'date_to_timestamp'. The lack of details about return format or context reduces clarity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many time-related siblings (e.g., 'current_time', 'unix_to_datetime'), the absence of usage context makes selection harder. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
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.
