Wall-clock awareness for LLM agents. Two tools: elapsed-time-between-turns + day rollover detection.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools, temporal_peek and temporal_tick, have clearly distinct purposes: one reads state without advancing, the other advances the clock. Their descriptions explicitly contrast their roles, eliminating ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the 'temporal_' prefix, making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but tightly focused on its core functionality. It could benefit from additional tools like reset or configure, but the count is not inappropriate for a narrow domain.
The server covers basic read and advance operations, but lacks features like resetting time, configuring tick intervals, or querying history. While sufficient for simple use cases, there are notable gaps for more complex temporal workflows.
temporal_peekBInspectRead the current temporal snapshot for a thread WITHOUT advancing state. Use this when you want the gap delta but the call is not the canonical per-turn event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tz_name | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| thread_key | No | ||
| tz_offset_minutes | No |
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 tool is non-destructive (doesn't advance state), but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or any side effects beyond that.
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 concise with two front-loaded sentences. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and usage context, though it could expand slightly without losing conciseness.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is overly sparse. It fails to explain what 'temporal snapshot' or 'gap delta' means, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly without additional domain knowledge.
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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no explanations for the 4 parameters. The description also fails to describe any parameters (tz_name, client_id, thread_key, tz_offset_minutes), leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.
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 it reads a temporal snapshot for a thread and emphasizes it does not advance state, distinguishing it from the sibling tool temporal_tick which likely advances state.
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 says 'Use this when you want the gap delta but the call is not the canonical per-turn event,' providing explicit context for when to use but not explicitly naming the alternative or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
temporal_tickAInspectAdvance the temporal clock for a thread and return a snapshot (now / prev / gap / day_rollover / fresh_thread). Call once per user turn. Pass a stable thread_key (e.g. the conversation ID) so gap deltas remain meaningful across page reloads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tz_name | No | Display name for the timezone (e.g. 'MDT'). Cosmetic; appears in the rendered header. | |
| client_id | No | Namespace tag (e.g. 'caweb', 'cursor'). Defaults to 'mcp'. | |
| thread_key | No | Stable thread identifier within this client. For claude.ai web use the conversation ID; for other MCP clients any caller-stable string. If omitted, falls back to the Mcp-Session-Id header. | |
| tz_offset_minutes | No | Caller's UTC offset in minutes (e.g. -360 for MDT). Used for day_rollover detection and header formatting. Defaults to 0 (UTC) so day rollover is always honest even if the caller forgets to pass one. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Advance the temporal clock' implies mutation, but no details on side effects, persistence, authorization, or reversibility. Minimal beyond return fields.
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?
Two sentences plus a usage tip, front-loaded with key action and return. No wasted words.
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 4 params, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers core usage (when to call, key parameter, return snapshot fields). Lacks explicit mention of sibling for read-only case, but otherwise adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning: thread_key as stable identifier with fallback, tz_offset_minutes usage for day_rollover, tz_name as cosmetic. Client_id not elaborated. Adds value.
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?
Description states verb 'advance' and resource 'temporal clock for a thread', with return fields listed. Sibling 'temporal_peek' is not mentioned, so no explicit differentiation, but 'advance' contrasts with 'peek'.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call once per user turn' and to pass a stable thread_key. Provides usage context but no when-not-to-use or exclusion of alternatives. Sibling not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
