Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MCP-timeserver What's the current time in London?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A simple MCP server that exposes datetime information to agentic systems and chat REPLs
The server implements a simple datetime:// URI scheme for accessing the current date/time in a given timezone, for example:
datetime://Africa/Freetown/now
datetime://Europe/London/now
datetime://America/New_York/nowThe server exposes a tool to get the current local time in the system timezone:
>>> get_current_time()
"The current time is 2024-12-18 19:59:36"Related MCP server: DateTime MCP Server
use the following json
{
"mcpServers": {
"MCP-timeserver": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["MCP-timeserver"]
}
}
}Get the current time in the configured local timezone
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds the key behavioral detail that time is in the configured local timezone, not UTC or system time. No side effects exist for a read-only clock, so this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, conveying both action and timezone context efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a trivial stateless tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is retrieved and the timezone context. Nothing more is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema_description_coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, so this score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('current time') with a relevant qualifier ('in the configured local timezone'). It unambiguously describes the tool's function, even without sibling differentiation needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There are no sibling tools or alternatives, so explicit when-to-use guidance is unnecessary. The description provides clear context (retrieves current time), which is sufficient for this simple tool. Lacks explicit exclusions but none are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0get-current-timeScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or misselection. The tool's purpose is clear and distinct.
The single tool follows a standard verb_noun pattern (get-current-time), which is consistent and predictable.
At just one tool, the server feels minimal and borderline thin for a typical toolbox. However, the narrow scope of a timeserver makes this count acceptable, if not ideal.
The tool fully covers the domain of retrieving the current time as per its description. There are no obvious missing operations for a server of this intended purpose.
A time server that keeps your AI honest about time. Real clock + drift guard, zero dependencies.
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
A simple MCP server built with FastMCP and python
Agent-native MCP server over the public saagarpatel.dev corpus. Read-only, stateless.
