Zmanim MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct, with each focusing on specific prayer times (Mincha, Shabbat, Shema, etc.). However, the comprehensive 'daily_times' tool subsumes many of the others, potentially causing an agent to select it instead of a more specific tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'zmanim_get_<descriptive_noun>' pattern in snake_case. This makes it easy for an agent to understand the purpose and predict tool names.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools cover the major categories of Jewish daily prayer times (general, Mincha, Shabbat, Shema, sunrise/sunset, Tefila) without being excessive or sparse. The count is well-scoped for this domain.
Completeness4/5
The set covers most core daily zmanim needs. However, it lacks tools for holiday-specific times (e.g., Yom Kippur) or fast day times, which would be expected for a comprehensive zmanim server.
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the use of the NOAA algorithm, the return format options, and an example. However, it does not discuss error handling or boundary conditions.
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 opens with a clear purpose and is well-structured. However, the Args section duplicates schema descriptions, adding unnecessary length. Could be more concise.
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 simple read-only tool, the description covers purpose, algorithm, parameters, return format, and an example. It is sufficient for typical use, though it lacks error handling details. Given the presence of an output schema, completeness is good.
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 provides full descriptions for all parameters, including constraints and examples. The description's Args section merely replicates this information, adding no new semantic value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 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 clearly states it returns sunrise and sunset times for a location and date, using a specific algorithm. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like zmanim_get_daily_times, which might also include these times.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description explains the meaning of Mincha Gedola, Mincha Ketana, and Plag HaMincha, providing useful context about what the tool calculates. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but annotations already declare safety.
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 concise, front-loads the main purpose, and includes a helpful bullet list of times. No extraneous information, though it could be slightly more streamlined.
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 annotations and well-described schema, the description adequately explains the tool's output (three Mincha times) and their definitions. It is complete for a specific prayer-time tool, though it does not mention the reliance on Jewish calendar calculations (inherent).
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 already has detailed descriptions for each property (location, latitude, etc.), so schema coverage is high. The tool description only restates that params contain location and date, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Get the times for Mincha' with specific verb and resource, and lists the three distinct times (Mincha Gedola, Mincha Ketana, Plag HaMincha). It distinguishes from sibling tools which target other prayer times or daily times.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like zmanim_get_shema_times or zmanim_get_shabbat_times. The agent must rely on tool names to differentiate. No when-not or alternative mentions.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the two halachic opinions and their differences, which goes beyond annotations but does not disclose potential edge cases or failure modes.
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 concise with four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a useful note about the difference between the two opinions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the two opinions and mentions output format flexibility. It could sometimes state the default format or order of outputs, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a focused list tool.
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 description only briefly mentions the params argument as 'Input parameters containing location and date information.' The input schema provides detailed descriptions for each subfield (location, latitude, etc.), so schema coverage is high. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already offers.
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 gets the latest times for reciting the morning Shema according to two major opinions (GR"A and MG"A), using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zmanim_get_daily_times and zmanim_get_tefila_times by focusing on Shema.
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 explains the two calculations and notes that MG"A is earlier and more stringent, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer based on the Shema focus.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that the tool returns a string in requested format (markdown or json) and lists the included times. This provides some behavioral context beyond annotations but is not extensive. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Description is concise at about 10 lines, including a bullet list of returned times. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists specifics. Some redundancy exists in the full description, but overall it is well-structured and not verbose. Slight improvement could be achieved by merging the return format mention more concisely.
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 moderate complexity (multiple input parameters, output format options, listing many times), the description covers the output comprehensively and mentions format. Annotations cover idempotence and read-only. The schema fully documents parameters. No output schema is visible but context says it exists. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
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 indicated as 0%, but the input schema actually contains detailed descriptions for each property (location, latitude, longitude, time_zone, date, response_format). The tool description only vaguely mentions 'params (LocationInput): Input parameters containing location and date information' without adding new semantics. Since schema already covers parameters, baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it provides a comprehensive set of daily zmanim, listing major times. Annotations title 'Get All Daily Zmanim' matches. The tool name 'zmanim_get_daily_times' and the list of included times distinguish it from sibling tools like zmanim_get_mincha_times, which focus on subsets. Purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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?
Description explicitly states 'Use this tool to get a complete daily schedule of prayer times for any location.' While it does not list when to avoid, the contrast with sibling tools (which are more specific) implies that this tool is for full schedules and others for partial. This provides clear context for selection, though explicit exclusion of alternatives would improve score.
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?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds behavioral context like the offset default and community customs, which is helpful beyond annotations.
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 a clear purpose, bulleted list of calculated times, and note about customs. It is efficient with few wasted words.
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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects without being overly detailed. It mentions custom offsets and response formats.
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 description summarizes the main parameters but adds limited extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. With schema coverage being rich, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 gets Shabbat candle lighting and Havdalah times for a specified location and date, listing the specific times calculated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other Zmanim calculations.
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 for Shabbat time queries but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives. However, the tool name and context make it obvious, so it's clear enough.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds calculation context (GR"A vs MG"A) and return format, with no contradiction to annotations.
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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then explanation of opinions, then args and returns. Every sentence adds value.
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 complexity of location-based calculations and two opinions, the description covers essential context. It mentions return format but could clarify default date behavior, though that is in the schema.
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 0% but the input schema itself has detailed property descriptions. The tool description provides a high-level summary of the params object, adding some value but not fully compensating for the lack of param description.
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 states it gets the latest times for morning prayer (Tefila/Shacharis) according to two opinions, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools for daily, mincha, shabbat, shema, and sunrise/sunset times.
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 use for morning prayer deadlines and lists two halachic opinions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions.
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:

[![zmanim-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ariroffe72/zmanim-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ariroffe72/zmanim-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![zmanim-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ariroffe72/zmanim-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ariroffe72/zmanim-mcp-server)

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/ariroffe72/zmanim-mcp-server'

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