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
- Repository
- MirrorEthic/temporal-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: temporal_peek reads state without advancing, while temporal_tick advances the clock and returns a snapshot. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern with the temporal_ prefix, making naming predictable and consistent.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal for state management. While the focused scope is acceptable, it may lack additional operations like reset or query that could be expected.
The tools cover the core temporal operations: peeking and advancing state. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no reset or manual override), but the surface is functional for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolstemporal_peekBInspect
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?
Discloses the key non-advancing behavior but no other behavioral traits given missing annotations. Lacks details on side effects or idempotency.
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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with core action and followed by usage guidance. 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?
Fails to describe parameter semantics or output format, especially critical given no output schema and 4 undocumented parameters.
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?
No parameter descriptions in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain any of the four parameters, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.
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 it reads a temporal snapshot without advancing state, implying a distinct purpose from the sibling. However, lacks explicit contrast to temporal_tick.
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 a specific use case (gap delta, non-canonical event) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name the alternative tool.
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?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses the return fields, the meaning of gap deltas across page reloads, and the default behavior for tz_offset_minutes. It doesn't hide the mutation nature.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence packs purpose and output fields; the second adds crucial usage instruction.
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?
No output schema, but return fields are listed. Parameters are fully described. Sibling tool not compared, but the description is sufficient for a simple tick operation.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the fallback for thread_key and the cosmetic nature of tz_name, plus the day_rollover logic for 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 advances the temporal clock and returns a snapshot with specific fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling temporal_peek by implying a state change.
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 guidance to call once per user turn and use a stable thread_key. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternative mention, but context is clear enough.
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!