Temporal-MCP
Server Details
Wall-clock awareness for LLM agents. Two tools: elapsed-time-between-turns + day rollover detection.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: temporal_peek reads the current snapshot without advancing state, while temporal_tick advances the clock and returns a new snapshot. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'temporal_' prefix (peek/tick). The naming is predictable and domain-appropriate.
With only 2 tools, the surface is thin but appropriate for a narrow domain (temporal snapshots). No unnecessary tools, but slightly limited scope.
The tools cover the essential operations: reading the current state without side effects and advancing state to get a new snapshot. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolstemporal_peekAInspect
Read 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively conveys the read-only, non-advancing nature. However, it does not detail other behaviors like idempotency or error conditions.
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, no fluff, front-loaded with core action and usage condition.
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?
Missing parameter explanations and output description (no output schema). Does not elaborate on 'gap delta' or thread context. Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of the 4 parameters (tz_name, client_id, thread_key, tz_offset_minutes). Fails to add meaning beyond bare schema.
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?
Clearly states 'Read the current temporal snapshot for a thread WITHOUT advancing state', using a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling by implying temporal_tick 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?
Explicitly says 'Use this when you want the gap delta but the call is not the canonical per-turn event', giving a clear condition and hinting at alternative (temporal_tick).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
temporal_tickAInspect
Advance 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool advances the clock (mutative behavior) and details the returned snapshot fields. It also explains how the `thread_key` affects gap deltas and the default for `tz_offset_minutes`.
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, no unnecessary words. The first sentence describes the action and output, the second provides usage instruction. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 no output schema, the description mentions the return fields. All four parameters are described, and usage guidance is given. The tool's behavior is fully covered.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the rationale for a stable `thread_key`, the cosmetic nature of `tz_name`, and the default behavior of `tz_offset_minutes`.
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's function: advancing a temporal clock and returning a snapshot. It distinguishes from the sibling tool temporal_peek by indicating this tool advances the clock, implying the sibling does not.
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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call once per user turn.' and advises on passing a stable `thread_key`. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!