Skip to main content
Glama
fisher1006

Time MCP Server

by fisher1006
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.6.2

  • 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 in functionality, 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, get_current_time) with clear, descriptive names. The naming style is uniform and predictable across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a time-related domain. While the tools cover basic operations, the scope is limited, and additional functionalities like scheduling, time calculations, or date manipulations might be expected but are missing.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a time server. It lacks essential operations such as date parsing, time arithmetic, scheduling, or recurring event handling, which are common in time-related applications. This will likely cause agent failures when more complex time tasks are required.

  • Average 3.1/5 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—no mention of error handling, input validation, timezone database sources, daylight saving time considerations, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

    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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence that states the core functionality without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding.

    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 (timezone conversion with no output schema and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., converted time format, error messages), how it handles edge cases, or any behavioral traits. With no structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more context to be complete.

    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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed parameter information (e.g., IANA timezone names, 24-hour format, default to UTC). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

    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 ('convert') and resource ('time between timezones'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_current_time', which appears to serve a different function (getting current time vs. converting between timezones).

    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. While the sibling tool 'get_current_time' suggests a different use case, the description doesn't mention it or provide any context about when conversion is needed versus getting current time, nor does it address any prerequisites or exclusions.

    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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format, whether it includes date components, precision (seconds/milliseconds), or error handling for invalid timezones. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place.

    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 time retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe the return value format or error behavior. Given the low complexity, it's acceptable but could be more complete by specifying what 'current time' means in terms of 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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'timezone' parameter with IANA format examples and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the parameter documentation work.

    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 'Get' and resource 'current time' with the specific scope 'in a specific timezone'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'convert_time' by focusing on current time retrieval rather than conversion between timezones. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it returns the current time for the given timezone, which would make it a perfect 5.

    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 when needing current time in a particular timezone, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling 'convert_time'. No guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or alternative approaches is provided. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

    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/fisher1006/time-mcp'

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