Skip to main content
Glama
DSado88

DateTime MCP Server

by DSado88
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_current_date returns only the date, get_current_datetime returns both date and time, and get_current_time returns only the time. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these three operations.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_current_' prefix, using snake_case uniformly. This makes the naming predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels somewhat thin for a datetime domain, as it lacks operations like date/time parsing, formatting, arithmetic, or timezone handling. However, the tools cover basic current datetime retrieval adequately.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for a datetime server, missing essential operations such as date/time manipulation, conversion between formats or timezones, parsing strings, or calculating differences. This will limit agents to only retrieving current values without any processing capabilities.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] the current date and time,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description 'Get the current date and time' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format or behavioral traits. Without an output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, which could be a gap, but for this simple tool, it's borderline acceptable, scoring at the minimum viable level.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, detailing both parameters ('format' and 'timezone') with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't enhance semantic understanding. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.

    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 'Get the current date and time' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current date and time'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_date' and 'get_current_time', which likely provide more specific outputs, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings ('get_current_date' and 'get_current_time'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It's a basic statement of function without contextual usage advice, leaving the agent to infer when this general tool is preferred over more specific alternatives.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get only the current time' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, or how it handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks completeness in explaining behavioral aspects or return values, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters (format and include_seconds) with details like default values and options. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets 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.

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description 'Get only the current time' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current time'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_current_date and get_current_datetime. However, it lacks specificity about what 'only' means compared to siblings, which slightly reduces clarity.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_current_date, get_current_datetime). It implies usage for time-only retrieval but doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool's function but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. The description is accurate but minimal.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough to understand its basic function. However, it lacks details on return values or behavioral context, which could be helpful for an agent.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'format' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description 'Get only the current date' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current date'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_current_datetime and get_current_time by specifying 'only the current date' rather than including time components.

    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?

    The description implies usage context by specifying 'only the current date', suggesting this tool should be used when only the date is needed versus siblings that include time. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

datetime-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

datetime-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DSado88/datetime-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server