Skip to main content
Glama
asaficontact

Time MCP Server

by asaficontact
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one converts time between timezones, while the other gets the current time in a specific timezone. There is no overlap or ambiguity in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (convert_time, get_current_time) with clear, descriptive names that align well with their functions.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a time-related domain. It lacks basic operations like formatting time, calculating time differences, or handling date ranges, which are common in time utilities.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a time server. It misses essential functions such as parsing dates, adding/subtracting time intervals, comparing times, or supporting common date formats, limiting agent capabilities.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 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 is passing

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but does not cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid timezone inputs), format constraints beyond the schema, or response behavior (e.g., output format). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

    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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the tool's complexity (time conversion with three required parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke the tool effectively in varied contexts.

    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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or edge cases, but since the schema provides comprehensive details, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract from parameter understanding.

    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 'Convert time between timezones' clearly states the verb ('convert') and resource ('time'), specifying the operation's scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_current_time', which likely retrieves current time without conversion, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

    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 alternatives, such as the sibling 'get_current_time'. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for application, offering only a basic functional statement without usage instructions.

    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 for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention error handling (e.g., invalid timezone), performance characteristics, or return format. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist), but it provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

    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 that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and is perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

    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?

    For a simple tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, it doesn't describe the return value format (e.g., ISO string, timestamp), error conditions, or how it differs from the sibling tool. The description is complete enough to understand the basic operation but lacks important contextual details.

    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 the schema already fully documents the single 'timezone' parameter with its IANA format and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

    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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current time') with the specific constraint 'in a specific timezone'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'convert_time' by focusing on current time retrieval rather than time conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool, which would be needed for a perfect score.

    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 ('in a specific timezone') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'convert_time'. No guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or alternative approaches is provided. The usage is clear from the name and description but lacks explicit comparison with alternatives.

    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

mcp-time MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-time 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/asaficontact/mcp-time'

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