Azan-MCP

by bartest5

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

get_azan_text

Retrieve the full Azan text for any of the five daily prayers, in Arabic, transliteration, or both.

Instructions

Return the full Azan text. prayer: fajr, dhuhr, asr, maghrib, isha. language: arabic, transliteration, or both.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "prayer": "<prayer>"
    },
    "name": "get_azan_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prayer`	Yes
`language`	No		both

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the accepted values for prayer and language, but does not elaborate on return format, error behavior, or any other behavioral traits. The read-only nature is implied by 'Return' but not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word earns its place. It lists parameters and values 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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (full Azan text), the supported prayers, and language options. It is largely complete, though it could mention the structure of the 'both' language option or emphasize the distinction from the schedule 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by enumerating valid values for prayer (fajr, dhuhr, asr, maghrib, isha) and language (arabic, transliteration, both). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the plain schema properties, though it does not address case sensitivity or invalid input handling.

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 returns the full Azan text, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_daily_azan_schedule by specifying the text of the azan rather than a schedule.

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 for retrieving azan text for a specified prayer and language, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_daily_azan_schedule, or provide exclusions.

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