Muslim Prayer Reminder MCP

Check Muslim Prayer Due Status

get_prayer_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether any of the five obligatory Muslim prayers is currently due for your location, and receive active reminder details with the calculation method used.

Instructions

Checks if a Muslim obligatory prayer (Fajr, Dhuhr, Asr, Maghrib, Isha) is currently due for the user location and returns active reminder details. MANDATORY: The LLM must always explicitly disclose to the user which calculation authority method was used and why it was selected (see authorityNotice in response).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`madhab`	No	Optional Asr shadow jurisprudence override (Shafi or Hanafi)
`userId`	No	Unique user or device ID for preference and deduplication tracking
`latitude`	No	Optional explicit latitude override
`timezone`	No	Optional IANA timezone override (e.g. Asia/Riyadh)
`longitude`	No	Optional explicit longitude override
`calculationMethod`	No	Optional calculation authority override (auto-resolved from location by default)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`madhab`	Yes	Active Asr jurisprudence
`prayer`	No	The name of the currently due prayer if applicable
`timezone`	Yes	Resolved IANA timezone
`dedupeKey`	No	Deduplication cache key
`localDate`	Yes	Current local date in YYYY-MM-DD
`nextPrayer`	Yes	The name of the next upcoming prayer
`reminderDue`	Yes	Whether a prayer is currently due for reminder
`expiresAtUtc`	No	UTC expiration time of the active prayer window
`reminderText`	No	Localized reminder message
`startedAtUtc`	No	UTC start time of the active prayer window
`locationSource`	Yes	Source of location resolution
`authorityNotice`	No	Mandatory theological transparency notice
`nextPrayerAtUtc`	Yes	UTC timestamp of the next upcoming prayer
`selectionReason`	No	Reason for authority selection
`calculationMethod`	Yes	Active calculation authority
`minuteAdjustments`	No	Applied minute adjustments
`authorityDescription`	No	Description of the calculation authority

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by mandating that the LLM disclose the calculation authority method and reasoning to the user, and by referencing authorityNotice in the response. This is a non-obvious requirement that the agent needs to know.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first clearly states the tool's behavior and scope, and the second front-loads the critical mandatory disclosure. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, idempotent status tool with zero required parameters, fully documented schema fields, and an output schema available, the description is complete. It covers the one non-obvious agent obligation and does not need to repeat return-value details already provided by structured fields.

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 every parameter, including enums, already described. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond referencing calculation authority and user location, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Checks'), names the exact resource (the five obligatory Muslim prayers), and scopes the action to 'currently due for the user location' and 'active reminder details'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_next_prayer and get_today_prayer_times, even without explicitly naming them.

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?

It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_next_prayer or get_today_prayer_times. The 'currently due' wording implies the selection context, and the MANDATORY disclosure instruction is an operational guideline, but explicit routing to sibling tools is missing.

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

Deploy Server