Almanack

render_timeline

Draw a date range as a horizontal SVG timeline and return the SVG itself. Both ends of the range are included. Axis ticks choose their own granularity from the span — days, months or years — and year labels use the calendar's eras where it defines them, so a range crossing a descending era's boundary counts down to it and up again after it, ... 3, 2, 1 | 1, 2, 3 ... Era boundaries inside the range are drawn as labelled vertical rules. Each event is {'label':.., 'date':{..}} for a marker or {'label':.., 'start':{..}, 'end':{..}} for a bar, optionally with 'lane' (a row name) and 'color_key' (a category name picking an accent colour). AT MOST 500 EVENTS: more is refused with render.timeline.too_many_events rather than drawn partially. Labels never overlap; they stagger and then truncate with an ellipsis, and the full label is always in the marker's whatever ends up drawn. theme is 'default', 'dark', or a theme object with all of font_family, background, axis, text and accents; colours must be #RGB or #RRGGBB and anything else is refused. Fully deterministic: the same arguments always produce byte-identical SVG, with no timestamps or generated ids in it. The output is static SVG and never contains script or style.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`end`	Yes
`start`	Yes
`theme`	No	default
`events`	No
`calendar`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is exceptionally transparent. It discloses determinism, the 500-event refusal behavior, label overlap/truncation with <title> fallback, era-boundary handling, color validation, and that output is static SVG with no script or style.

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 dense but every sentence adds necessary behavioral or schema-related detail. The purpose is front-loaded, and the extensive constraints are presented in a logical progression from output semantics to event shapes to limits to determinism.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers return type, determinism, error behavior, label collision handling, theme restrictions, and event modeling. The main gap is that start, end, and calendar remain opaque objects in the schema and are only partially explained via the phrase 'date range' and references to calendar eras; an agent may still need additional context for those values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does substantively for events and theme: exact marker/bar shapes, optional lane and color_key, theme presets, required theme object keys, and color syntax. It leaves the exact nested shape of calendar, start, and end date objects somewhat implicit, which prevents a 5.

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 opens with a specific action and deliverable: 'Draw a date range as a horizontal SVG timeline and return the SVG itself.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as scatter_dates or render_calendar_page, even without 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose statement gives clear context for when to use the tool: anytime an agent needs a horizontal SVG timeline of a date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Almanack tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct date/calendar operation: arithmetic, conversion, weekday lookup, period membership, moon phase, daylight, event queries, formatting/parsing, and two different rendering outputs. Even superficially similar tools (calendar_weekday vs nth_weekday_of_month, calendar_events vs calendar_periods) ask clearly different questions that the descriptions make unambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_first or noun_query pattern, but there is a mix: add_to_date, convert_date, and parse_calendar_date are imperative, while moon_phases, sun_daylight, and calendar_events are noun phrases describing what they return. The calendar_ prefix on three tools and consistent rendering parse/format pairs help readability, so this is a minor deviation, not chaos.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools sits at the upper bound of the ideal range for a focused domain toolkit. Every tool addresses a genuine calendar use case (define, convert, query, render, validate, generate), and none feels redundant or extraneous.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full lifecycle of working with a custom calendar: validation before use, conversion between representations, date arithmetic and intervals, weekday and period queries, recurring events and daylight/moon data, formatting/parsing, and visual rendering. No obvious dead ends or missing operations come to mind for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?