Skip to main content
Glama
dumyCq

Time MCP Server

by dumyCq
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

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: one converts time between timezones, while the other retrieves the current time in a specified timezone. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (convert_time and get_current_time), using snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations or mixed conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a time-related domain. While the tools cover basic operations, there are likely gaps such as scheduling, time arithmetic, or handling date formats that could enhance functionality. A count of 2 is borderline too few for a comprehensive time server.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is significantly incomplete for a time server domain. It lacks essential operations like date manipulation, time arithmetic, scheduling, or handling recurring events. Agents may struggle with common time-related tasks beyond simple conversions and current time retrieval.

  • Average 2.9/5 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 status not available

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic function without mentioning any behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., invalid timezone names), default behaviors (e.g., using 'Etc/UTC' as default per the schema), or output format. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in edge cases.

    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: 'Convert time between timezones.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function.

    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 (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like the default 'Etc/UTC' timezone mentioned in the schema. For a conversion tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the output looks like (e.g., converted time in HH:MM format).

    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 detailed descriptions for all parameters (source_timezone, time, target_timezone) including format examples and default behaviors. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

    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 as timezone conversion. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_current_time' by focusing on conversion rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the specific format (24-hour) or IANA timezone requirement, which would make it a 5.

    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. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get_current_time' or any other potential tools for time-related operations. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing IANA timezone names, or when this tool is preferred over other time conversion methods.

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

  • 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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

    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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

    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 and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., time format, error handling) or provide behavioral context, which is essential for an agent to use it correctly without structured guidance.

    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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'timezone' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current time'), and specifies the scope ('in a specific timezones'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'convert_time' tool, which prevents a perfect score, but the purpose is unambiguous.

    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 the sibling 'convert_time' tool. It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context 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.

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

time-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

time-mcp 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/dumyCq/time-mcp'

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