Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

findtime.io MCP Server

by io.github.hkchao
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Answer a time question

answer_time_question
Read-onlyIdempotent

Answers a time, time zone, or scheduling question written in plain language, including messy or mixed questions and relative dates such as "Tuesday", "next Friday", "tomorrow", or "in 3 weeks". Resolves the intent, locations, and date and returns a structured answer. Supported intents include current time, conversion, daylight saving changes, overlapping work hours, meeting times, abbreviations, and IANA time zones. Unknown or ambiguous locations return clarification candidates.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "answer_time_question"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nowNoOptional ISO timestamp for deterministic relative-date handling.
dateNoOptional YYYY-MM-DD date context.
queryYesThe raw user time-related question or prompt.
localeNoOptional user locale hint, such as en-US.
_endUserIdNoOptional opaque per-call end-user attribution token populated by the MCP host, not the LLM. Accepts a non-PII hash or token, excluding raw email addresses, names, or platform user IDs.
userTimezoneNoOptional IANA timezone for the user, used for relative questions like "my time" or "tomorrow".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add behavior — and it does: it resolves intent, locations and dates, and returns clarification candidates for unknown/ambiguous locations. It stops short of describing the shape of the 'structured answer', which is the one meaningful behavioral gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the supported-intent list and edge-case behavior. The intent enumeration earns its place by scoping what the tool will handle; no filler or repetition of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 6-parameter natural-language resolver with no output schema, the description covers inputs, supported scope, and ambiguity handling. The remaining gap is return-value detail — 'returns a structured answer' is vague when no output schema exists — but the important call-time information is present.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema; the description adds nothing per-parameter. At most it implies that relative-date phrases are resolved using the `now`/`userTimezone` context, but it never explains that linkage explicitly, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Answers a time, time zone, or scheduling question') and enumerates the intents it covers (current time, conversion, DST, overlap hours, meeting times, IANA zones). It does not explicitly contrast itself with single-purpose siblings like convert_time, get_current_time, or get_overlap_hours, so an agent must infer that this is the natural-language front door — clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Including messy or mixed questions and relative dates' establishes the context that selects this tool over narrow siblings, and the clarification-candidate behavior is stated. However, there is no explicit when-not or named alternative ('use convert_time for a straight HH:MM conversion'), leaving the routing decision partially to inference.

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

All findtime.io MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources