DateTime-LocalMCPServer

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes focused on specific date/time components, though current_datetime and formatted_datetime could potentially overlap if the default format matches ISO 8601. The descriptions help clarify differences, with current_datetime providing a fixed ISO format while formatted_datetime allows customization.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear 'current_' or descriptive prefixes (formatted_datetime, timezone_datetime, unix_timestamp). The naming convention is predictable and readable throughout the entire set.
Tool Count4/5
Nine tools is reasonable for a datetime server, though it feels slightly heavy with separate tools for day, month, and year that could potentially be combined. The count supports comprehensive datetime operations without being overwhelming.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides complete coverage for datetime operations including current date/time retrieval, formatting, timezone handling, and Unix timestamp conversion. No obvious gaps exist for a server focused on current datetime information retrieval.
Average 4.3/5 across 9 of 9 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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure and example output, which is helpful, but doesn't mention potential behavioral traits like timezone handling, localization, or execution characteristics. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The return details are necessary for clarity, but the formatting with 'Returns' and '----' is slightly verbose for such a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema in the description, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format, though it could benefit from mentioning timezone or locale considerations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, maintaining a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Return') and resource ('name of the current day'), distinguishing it from siblings like current_date, current_time, or current_month. It precisely defines what the tool provides without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying it returns the day name, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like current_date or current_datetime. No guidance is provided on exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns formatted datetime, uses strftime-compatible format strings, has a default format, returns a dictionary with status and formatted fields, and handles invalid formats with error responses. This covers most essential aspects, though it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects (which may not be relevant here).
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Parameters, Returns) and front-loaded purpose statement. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core functionality, the parameter section explains format details, and the return section describes output structure and error handling. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the optional/default note into the main description, but it's efficiently organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which the description references), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use the parameter, what it returns, and error behavior. The output schema details are appropriately referenced rather than duplicated, making this sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that the 'format' parameter is a 'strftime-compatible format string' with a specific default, clarifies it's optional, and describes error handling for invalid formats. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, providing clear semantic meaning for the single parameter.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return the current date and time using a custom format.' It specifies the verb ('Return'), resource ('current date and time'), and key differentiator ('custom format'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'current_datetime' or 'timezone_datetime', which likely provide similar functionality without format customization.
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. With multiple time-related tools available (e.g., 'current_datetime', 'timezone_datetime', 'unix_timestamp'), there's no indication of when this format-based approach is preferable, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives. Usage is implied through the parameter description but not explicitly stated.
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 discloses the return format (a dictionary with status and year), which is helpful, but does not mention behavioral traits like performance, error handling, or dependencies. The description adds some value but lacks depth.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured output explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and details the return values, which aligns with the output schema's role. No gaps exist for this straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the output, adding meaning by detailing the return structure. This compensates well for the lack of input parameters.
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 clearly states the specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the current year'), distinguishing it from siblings like current_date, current_month, or current_day. It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating what it returns, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like current_date or current_month. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format and structure (dictionary with status and datetime fields), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like system time accuracy, timezone handling beyond 'local', or execution characteristics (e.g., performance, side effects).
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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear Returns section. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines what the tool does, the second explains the output structure. No redundant or verbose language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, the format, and the response structure. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to exhaustively document return values, and it provides exactly what's needed for this straightforward utility tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Return') and resource ('current or today's local date and time'), with precise format specification ('ISO 8601'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'formatted_datetime' or 'timezone_datetime' by emphasizing local time without formatting options.
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 'local date and time' and 'ISO 8601 format', which helps differentiate it from siblings like 'unix_timestamp' or 'formatted_datetime'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'current_date' or 'current_time', missing explicit when/when-not guidance.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dictionary with status and month fields, which adds context beyond the basic purpose. However, it doesn't mention behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, uses system time, or has any rate limits, leaving some gaps 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured returns section. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the output format without unnecessary details, making it efficient and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters), high schema coverage (100%), and the presence of an output schema (implied by the returns section), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and the return values, which suffices for this simple utility tool without needing annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond this, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
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 clearly states the specific verb ('Return') and resource ('name of the current month'), and distinguishes it from siblings like current_day or current_year by focusing exclusively on the month. It's not a tautology of the name 'current_month' as it elaborates on what exactly is returned.
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 by specifying what it returns (the current month's name), which helps differentiate it from siblings that return dates, times, or years. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like current_date or formatted_datetime, so it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns current datetime in ISO 8601 format, handles invalid timezone inputs with an error response, and defaults to UTC if no timezone is specified. This covers core operational traits, though it lacks details on rate limits or authentication needs.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The parameter and return sections are well-structured but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by clarifying behavior, though some redundancy exists in stating the default and error handling.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which the description details), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, parameter usage, return values, and error handling, covering all necessary context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the parameter 'timezone' as an optional IANA timezone name with examples ('UTC', 'Asia/Kolkata') and a default value of 'UTC'. This provides clear semantics that the schema alone does not convey.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Return the current date and time') and resource ('for a specified timezone'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'current_date' or 'current_time' which lack timezone specification. It explicitly mentions the timezone parameter, making its purpose distinct from tools that return local or UTC-only values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying it returns datetime 'for a specified timezone', suggesting it should be used when timezone-aware output is needed versus siblings that may default to UTC or local time. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'formatted_datetime' or 'current_datetime', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the operation (returns today's date), output format (dictionary with status and date fields), and date format (YYYY-MM-DD). It doesn't mention timezone behavior or potential errors, but for a simple date tool this is reasonably complete.
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?
Extremely concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear Returns section with structured documentation of the output. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the format. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to exhaustively document return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, focusing instead on the return 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 clearly states the specific action ('Return today's local date') and resource ('date'), distinguishing it from siblings like current_datetime (which includes time) and current_year/month/day (which return specific components). The purpose is unambiguous and 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?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'today's local date' and the return format, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like current_datetime or current_day. The agent can infer from the return format, but no explicit guidance on alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by stating it returns the current local time in a specific format and outlines the response structure, including a status field. It does not mention potential errors or dependencies, but for a simple read-only tool, this is reasonably transparent.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured returns section that efficiently details the output format. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, specifies the output format and structure, and the output schema handles return values, so no additional details are needed for this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage with no properties. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it focuses appropriately on output behavior instead.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current local time'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on time rather than date, datetime, or other temporal components. The explicit mention of HH:MM:SS format further differentiates it from tools like unix_timestamp or formatted_datetime.
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 it returns 'current local time' in HH:MM:SS format, which suggests when to use this versus alternatives like current_date or unix_timestamp. However, it does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool does (returns current Unix timestamp) and details the return structure with specific fields and types. However, it doesn't mention potential behavioral aspects like whether the timestamp is UTC-based, if there are any rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions (though likely none for a timestamp tool).
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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Returns' section with well-formatted documentation of the output structure. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, documents the return format in detail, and the output schema handles the structured response documentation. For a timestamp retrieval tool, this provides all necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description explicitly states 'Return the current Unix timestamp' which reinforces that no inputs are needed, adding clarity beyond the empty schema. This earns a point above baseline for making the parameterless nature explicit in natural language.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current Unix timestamp'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'current_date' or 'formatted_datetime' by focusing specifically on Unix timestamp format rather than date/time components or formatted strings.
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 when to use this tool (when you need the Unix timestamp specifically), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Given the sibling tools include various date/time components and formatted outputs, the context suggests this is for Unix epoch seconds, but explicit guidance about alternatives is missing.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![DateTime-LocalMCPServer MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/VikasPrajapati1998/DateTime-LocalMCPServer/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/VikasPrajapati1998/DateTime-LocalMCPServer)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![DateTime-LocalMCPServer MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/VikasPrajapati1998/DateTime-LocalMCPServer/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/VikasPrajapati1998/DateTime-LocalMCPServer)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/VikasPrajapati1998/DateTime-LocalMCPServer'

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