Skip to main content
Glama
batteryshark

DateTime MCP Server

by batteryshark
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
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: get_current_date retrieves date information, while get_current_time retrieves time information. There is no overlap in functionality, and an agent would easily differentiate between them based on their names and descriptions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_current_' prefix, using snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a DateTime domain. A comprehensive DateTime server would typically include tools for date/time manipulation, formatting, timezone handling, or date arithmetic, not just current date and time retrieval.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for a DateTime server. It lacks basic operations like date/time parsing, formatting control, timezone conversions, date arithmetic (add/subtract days), or comparisons. Agents will hit dead ends when needing anything beyond current date/time retrieval.

  • Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

  • 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

  • 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 that the output format depends on a TIMEFMT setting, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention other traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors, or performance considerations.

    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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by returns and examples sections. Every sentence adds value without waste, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.

    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 output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, the output format dependency, and provides examples. However, it could be more explicit about sibling tool differentiation.

    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 output behavior without redundant parameter info, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

    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: 'Get the current time in the configured format.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current time'), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_current_date'. The distinction is implied but not stated.

    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 through the mention of 'configured format' and TIMEFMT setting, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_current_date'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

    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: it returns the current date in a specific format, optionally with the weekday appended. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like timezone handling or system dependencies.

    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 well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, examples), front-loaded key information, and no redundant sentences. Each part adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

    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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values with examples. A minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling or timezone context, but overall it provides sufficient information 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It clearly explains the single parameter 'include_weekday' and its effect on the output, including examples that illustrate the semantics beyond the schema's boolean type.

    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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current date'), including the output format ('ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD)'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_current_time' by focusing on date rather than time.

    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 through examples showing when to include the weekday parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_time' or other date-related tools. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.

    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-datetime MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-datetime 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/batteryshark/mcp-datetime'

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