F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceFacilitates note storage and summarization through custom URIs, allowing users to manage, summarize, and update notes with varying detail levels in a collaborative environment.
-
Datetime MCP Server
by bossjones
日時MCPサーバー
簡単なメモ管理とともに日時機能も提供する MCP (Model Completions Protocol) サーバー。
概要
このサーバーは MCP プロトコルを実装し、次のようなさまざまな日時関連のツールとリソースを提供します。
さまざまな形式での現在の日付と時刻
日付フォーマットユーティリティ
イベントスケジュールプロンプト
シンプルなメモ管理機能
このサーバーは、任意の MCP クライアントで使用でき、日付と時刻の情報にアクセスしたり、簡単なメモを管理したりできます。
Related MCP server: browser-use MCP server
特徴
リソース
サーバーは次のリソースを提供します。
datetime://current- 現在の日付と時刻datetime://today- ISO形式での今日の日付datetime://time- 24時間形式の現在の時刻note://internal/{name}- ユーザーが作成したメモ
ツール
サーバーは次のツールを提供します。
add-note- 名前と内容を指定して新しいメモを追加するget-current-time- さまざまな形式（ISO、読み取り可能、Unix タイムスタンプ、RFC3339）で現在の時刻を取得します。format-date- 指定されたフォーマットパターンに従って日付文字列をフォーマットします
プロンプト
サーバーは次のプロンプトを提供します。
summarize-notes- すべてのメモの要約を作成しますschedule-event- 特定の時間にイベントをスケジュールするのに役立ちます
インストール
リポジトリをクローンします。
git clone https://github.com/bossjones/datetime-mcp-server.git
cd datetime-mcp-server仮想環境を作成します。
uv venv
source .venv/bin/activate依存関係をインストールします。
uv sync使用法
サーバーの実行
サーバーを実行するには:
uv run python -m datetime_mcp_server.serverサーバーが起動し、stdin/stdout で MCP プロトコル メッセージをリッスンします。
サーバーへの接続
任意のMCPクライアントを使用してサーバーに接続できます。例えば、MCP CLIを使用する場合：
uv run mcp connect datetime-mcp-server発達
開発依存関係のインストール
# Install all dependencies including development dependencies
uv sync --devテストの実行
テストを実行するには:
uv run pytest tests/ユニットテスト
ユニット テストでは、個々のサーバー機能が正しく動作することを確認します。
uv run pytest tests/acceptance/test_server.py統合テスト
統合テストでは、サーバーが MCP プロトコルを正しく実装していることを確認します。
uv run pytest tests/acceptance/test_server_integration.py依存関係管理
# Add a production dependency
uv add package_name
# Add a development dependency
uv add --dev package_name
# Sync dependencies from lockfile
uv sync --frozen
# List outdated packages
uv outdated例
MCP CLI でサーバーを使用する
利用可能なリソースを一覧表示します。
uv run mcp resources list日時リソースを読み取ります。
uv run mcp resources read datetime://currentメモを追加:
uv run mcp tools call add-note --arguments '{"name": "meeting", "content": "Team meeting at 3pm"}'現在の時刻を ISO 形式で取得します。
uv run mcp tools call get-current-time --arguments '{"format": "iso"}'日付のフォーマット:
uv run mcp tools call format-date --arguments '{"date": "2023-10-15", "format": "%B %d, %Y"}'Makefileタスク
このプロジェクトには、開発を効率化するための Makefile タスクがいくつか含まれています。
# Sync all dependencies with frozen lockfile
make uv-sync-all
# Sync only development dependencies
make uv-sync-dev
# Run tests
make test建築と出版
配布用のパッケージを準備するには:
依存関係を同期し、ロックファイルを更新します。
uv syncパッケージディストリビューションをビルドします。
uv buildこれにより、 dist/ディレクトリにソースとホイールのディストリビューションが作成されます。
PyPI に公開:
uv publish注: 環境変数またはコマンド フラグを使用して PyPI 資格情報を設定する必要があります。
トークン:
--tokenまたはUV_PUBLISH_TOKENまたはユーザー名/パスワード:
--username/UV_PUBLISH_USERNAMEおよび--password/UV_PUBLISH_PASSWORD
デバッグ
MCPサーバーはstdio経由で実行されるため、デバッグが困難になる場合があります。最適なデバッグ環境を実現するには、 MCP Inspectorの使用を強くお勧めします。
次のコマンドを使用して、 npm経由で MCP Inspector を起動できます。
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv --directory /Users/malcolm/dev/bossjones/datetime-mcp-server run datetime-mcp-server起動すると、ブラウザでアクセスしてデバッグを開始できる URL がインスペクタに表示されます。
ライセンス
マサチューセッツ工科大学
貢献
リポジトリをフォークする
機能ブランチを作成する
変更を加える
uv run pytestでテストを実行します。プルリクエストを送信する
Available Tools
3 toolsadd-noteC
Add a new note
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Add a new note' and provides no details on side effects, permissions, return values, or error behavior.
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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, though this is largely a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue.
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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, a five-word description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The meaning of the parameters and expected return behavior remain ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for the two required parameters ('name' and 'content'), and the description does not explain their meaning or format. The agent cannot infer what 'name' or 'content' represent.
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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('note'), clearly stating the tool's function. It differentiates itself from the sibling 'get_report', which is a read operation.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action without any context about when to invoke it or when to choose a sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
format-dateC
Format a date string according to the specified format
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date string to format (default: today) | |
| format | Yes | Format string (e.g., '%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S') |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
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 what the tool does but doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, input validation, timezone considerations, or output format details. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in date parsing.
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 the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this simple tool and gets straight to the point.
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?
For a date formatting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format strings are supported, how date strings should be formatted, what happens with invalid inputs, or what the output looks like. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.
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 documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for 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 the verb ('format') and resource ('date string'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-current-time' which might also handle date/time operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this formatting operation is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get-current-timeB
Get the current time in various formats
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | Yes | Format to return the time in | |
| timezone | No | Optional timezone (default: local system timezone) |
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool returns time 'in various formats' but doesn't specify what those formats are, whether the operation is read-only, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant behavioral aspects unclear for the agent.
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's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return formats, which would help the agent use it correctly despite the absence of annotations.
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 mentions 'various formats', which aligns with the 'format' parameter's enum values in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what the structured schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 the tool's purpose ('Get the current time') and specifies the scope ('in various formats'), which distinguishes it from potential time-related operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'format-date', which might handle date formatting rather than current time retrieval.
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 like 'format-date'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
- First observed
add-note - First observed
format-date - First observed
get-current-time
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Scored across 3 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: add-note handles note creation, format-date processes date formatting, and get-current-time retrieves current time. The descriptions are specific and unambiguous, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Naming Consistency2/5
The naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions: add-note uses kebab-case, format-date uses kebab-case, and get-current-time uses kebab-case but has a longer name. While all are kebab-case, the verb styles vary (add, format, get), and the lack of a uniform pattern (e.g., all starting with 'get_' or using consistent verb forms) reduces predictability.
Tool Count3/5
With only 3 tools, the count feels thin for a 'Datetime MCP Server' as it suggests limited functionality. While the tools cover basic datetime operations, the server's name implies a broader scope that might include more operations like date parsing, timezone handling, or interval calculations, making this borderline appropriate.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface has significant gaps for a datetime server: it lacks core operations such as parsing dates, calculating differences between dates, handling timezones, or converting between formats. The existing tools (add-note, format-date, get-current-time) do not provide a complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for datetime manipulation, leading to potential agent failures in common scenarios.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
Google Keep-style notes app with an MCP server for AI agents to read/write notes.
Cross-session, cross-device memory for your agent: remember and recall notes. No key to start.
Markdown-based note-taking with a hosted MCP server. Your notes serve you and your AI.
past.dev is a long-term memory API for AI agents. Send it timestamped text such as emails, meeting transcripts and support tickets. Ask a question and get the current fact, the value it replaced and the source behind it. With this server, your assistant can recall and save memory and manage your past.dev account.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceThis server provides a note storage system with a custom URI scheme, allowing users to add and summarize notes, with adjustable summary detail levels.1-
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA server for managing and summarizing notes using a custom URI scheme, with tools to add notes and create styled summaries.418-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA simple note-taking MCP server that allows storing and summarizing notes with custom URI schemes and provides functionality to add notes and generate summaries with different detail levels.5-