prayer_timesGet today's Islamic prayer times (salah) for a location, and which prayer is next
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tz | No | IANA timezone of the location, e.g. Europe/London (defaults to UTC) | |
| lat | Yes | Latitude of the location | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude of the location | |
| method | No | Calculation convention: isna, mwl, egypt, karachi, gulf, diyanet, muis or jakim (defaults to isna) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / methodAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Calculation convention: isna, mwl, egypt, karachi, gulf, diyanet, muis or jakim (defaults to isna)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / tz / descriptionPrevious value: -"IANA timezone of the location, e.g. Europe/London"New value: +"IANA timezone of the location, e.g. Europe/London (defaults to UTC)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds that results are for 'today' and includes the 'next' prayer, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose other traits such as rate limits or the effect of calculation method on results.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes an additional output detail ('which prayer is next') without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with comprehensive schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's main function and output. However, the absence of an output schema and lack of detail about return format or calculation method limits completeness slightly.
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?
The input schema fully describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It mentions 'location' but does not elaborate on the parameters beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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: retrieving today's Islamic prayer times for a given location and identifying the next prayer. The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource is clearly defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like prayer_qibla (direction) or prayer_verse (scripture).
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?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that usage is implied. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.