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
DateTime MCP 서버
날짜/시간 기능과 간단한 메모 관리를 제공하는 MCP(Model Completions Protocol) 서버입니다.
개요
이 서버는 MCP 프로토콜을 구현하고 다음을 포함하여 다양한 날짜/시간 관련 도구와 리소스를 제공합니다.
다양한 형식의 현재 날짜 및 시간
날짜 형식 지정 유틸리티
이벤트 일정 프롬프트
간단한 노트 관리 기능
이 서버는 모든 MCP 클라이언트에서 날짜 및 시간 정보에 접근하고 간단한 메모를 관리하는 데 사용할 수 있습니다.
Related MCP server: browser-use MCP server
특징
자원
서버는 다음과 같은 리소스를 제공합니다.
datetime://current- 현재 날짜 및 시간datetime://today- ISO 형식의 오늘 날짜datetime://time- 24시간 형식의 현재 시간note://internal/{name}- 사용자가 만든 메모
도구
서버는 다음과 같은 도구를 제공합니다.
add-note- 이름과 내용을 입력하여 새 메모를 추가합니다.get-current-time- 다양한 형식(ISO, 읽기 가능, Unix 타임스탬프, RFC3339)으로 현재 시간을 가져옵니다.format-date- 지정된 형식 패턴에 따라 날짜 문자열을 형식화합니다.
프롬프트
서버는 다음과 같은 프롬프트를 제공합니다.
summarize-notes- 모든 노트의 요약을 생성합니다.schedule-event- 특정 시간에 이벤트를 예약하는 데 도움이 됩니다.
설치
저장소를 복제합니다.
지엑스피1
가상 환경 만들기:
uv venv
source .venv/bin/activate종속성을 설치합니다.
uv sync용법
서버 실행
서버를 실행하려면:
uv run python -m datetime_mcp_server.server서버가 시작되어 stdin/stdout에서 MCP 프로토콜 메시지를 수신합니다.
서버에 연결
모든 MCP 클라이언트를 사용하여 서버에 연결할 수 있습니다. 예를 들어, MCP CLI를 사용하면 다음과 같습니다.
uv run mcp connect datetime-mcp-server개발
개발 종속성 설치
# Install all dependencies including development dependencies
uv sync --dev테스트 실행
테스트를 실행하려면:
uv run pytest tests/단위 테스트
단위 테스트는 개별 서버 기능이 올바르게 작동하는지 확인합니다.
uv run pytest tests/acceptance/test_server.py통합 테스트
통합 테스트는 서버가 MCP 프로토콜을 올바르게 구현하는지 확인합니다.
uv run pytest tests/acceptance/test_server_integration.py종속성 관리
# 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# List outdated packages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 outdated예시
MCP CLI를 사용하여 서버 사용
사용 가능한 리소스를 나열하세요.
uv run mcp resources list날짜/시간 리소스 읽기:
uv run mcp resources read datetime://current메모 추가:
uv run mcp tools call add-note --arguments '{"name": "meeting", "content": "Team meeting at 3pm"}'ISO 형식으로 현재 시간을 가져옵니다.
uv run mcp tools call get-current-time --arguments '{"format": "iso"}'날짜 형식 지정:
uv run mcp tools call format-date --arguments '{"date": "2023-10-15", "format": "%B %d, %Y"}'Makefile 작업
이 프로젝트에는 개발을 간소화하기 위한 여러 가지 Makefile 작업이 포함되어 있습니다.
# Sync all dependencies with frozen lockfile
make uv-sync-all
# Sync only development dependencies
make uv-sync-dev
# Run tests
make test건축 및 출판
배포를 위해 패키지를 준비하려면:
종속성 동기화 및 잠금 파일 업데이트:
uv sync패키지 배포 빌드:
uv build이렇게 하면 dist/ 디렉토리에 소스와 휠 배포판이 생성됩니다.
PyPI에 게시:
uv publish참고: 환경 변수나 명령 플래그를 통해 PyPI 자격 증명을 설정해야 합니다.
토큰:
--token또는UV_PUBLISH_TOKEN또는 사용자 이름/비밀번호:
--username/UV_PUBLISH_USERNAME및--password/UV_PUBLISH_PASSWORD
디버깅
MCP 서버는 stdio를 통해 실행되므로 디버깅이 어려울 수 있습니다. 최상의 디버깅 환경을 위해서는 MCP Inspector 사용을 강력히 권장합니다.
다음 명령을 사용하여 npm 통해 MCP Inspector를 시작할 수 있습니다.
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv --directory /Users/malcolm/dev/bossjones/datetime-mcp-server run datetime-mcp-serverInspector를 실행하면 브라우저에서 접근하여 디버깅을 시작할 수 있는 URL이 표시됩니다.
특허
MIT
기여하다
저장소를 포크하세요
기능 브랜치 생성
변경 사항을 만드세요
uv run pytest로 테스트를 실행하세요풀 리퀘스트 제출
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-