Skip to main content
Glama

Moltline TimeOps

by com.moltlinestudio

Meeting Overlap

meeting_overlap
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find the shared meeting window across time zones inside working hours. FREE.

Give one UTC offset per participant and an optional working-hours window. Typical input {"offsets_utc": [-8, 1, 5.5]} returns {"overlap_utc": ["HH:MM", "HH:MM"], "overlap_minutes": N, "local_windows": [...]}; when no shared window exists it returns {"overlap": null, "verdict": "..."}.

Use when people in different zones need one shared slot. Not for converting a single known time between zones, and not for expanding a recurring series (recurrence_expand). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "times must be HH:MM"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_endNoWorking day end, 24h HH:MM; must be later than work_start. Default "17:00".17:00
work_startNoWorking day start, 24h HH:MM local in every zone. Default "09:00".09:00
offsets_utcYesOne UTC offset per participant, each between -14 and +14; fractional offsets allowed, e.g. [-8, 1, 5.5].

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond annotations (which already mark readOnly and idempotent) by detailing error behavior ('never raises a protocol error — returns an error object'), retry safety, and output structure when no overlap exists. This adds significant behavioral context annotations alone lack.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence earns its place. The description opens with purpose, gives an example, then states usage boundaries, error handling, and idempotency. It is compact yet comprehensive, with no filler except the minor 'FREE.' which does not detract.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated as true), the description covers purpose, parameters, example I/O, error behavior, usage guidelines, and sibling differentiation. It fully equips an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by providing a typical input example, explaining that offsets_utc represents one offset per participant, and that work_start/work_end form an optional working-hours window. This ties the schema to real usage without contradicting it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

First sentence clearly states the tool finds the shared meeting window across time zones within working hours. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like recurrence_expand by stating 'not for expanding a recurring series' and differentiates from time zone conversion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('Use when people in different zones need one shared slot') and when-not-to-use ('Not for converting a single known time... Not for expanding a recurring series'). Names an alternative tool (recurrence_expand) and explains error handling behavior for safe retries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Moltline TimeOps toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a clearly distinct temporal operation: business-day arithmetic, backward project scheduling, time-zone meeting overlap, recurrence expansion, and SLA due computation. The descriptions explicitly state what each tool is not for, making confusion unlikely.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use underscores, but the structure varies: business_days (noun_noun), deadline_planner (noun_verb), meeting_overlap (noun_noun), recurrence_expand (noun_verb), sla_due (abbreviation+adjective). No consistent verb_noun or action_resource pattern, making prediction harder.

Tool Count5/5

With five tools, the set covers core time-ops needs—business days, deadlines, meetings, recurrences, and SLAs—without bloat. Each tool earns its place, and the count is ideal for focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The surface is well-scoped for the stated domain, covering business-day logic, planning, meeting scheduling, recurrence, and SLA timing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no timezone conversion or general date difference) but are arguably out of scope or trivially handled externally.

Resources