Chronos Protocol

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools like 'check_time_reminders', 'create_time_reminder', 'get_current_time', and 'convert_time' each handle specific time-related tasks, while 'start_activity_log', 'end_activity_log', 'get_activity_logs', 'update_activity_log', and 'get_elapsed_time' form a complete activity logging lifecycle. There is no overlap in functionality that could cause misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout. Examples include 'check_time_reminders', 'convert_time', 'create_time_reminder', 'start_activity_log', and 'update_activity_log'. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and use the tools without confusion from mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose of time management and activity logging. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects such as time retrieval, conversion, reminders, and activity tracking. This number is neither too thin nor too heavy, fitting typical expectations for a focused domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for both time management and activity logging domains. For time, it includes creation, checking, conversion, and retrieval. For activities, it supports starting, ending, updating, retrieving, and calculating elapsed time. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends that would cause agent failures.
Average 2.9/5 across 9 of 9 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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 full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The description lacks critical context for safe and effective use.
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 front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly 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?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, output expectations, or usage context. The high parameter count and lack of structured support require more descriptive guidance to ensure safe and correct invocation.
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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing activity log' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (activity log), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'end_activity_log' which might also modify activity logs, nor does it specify the scope of updates beyond the generic term.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing activity log), compare to siblings like 'create_time_reminder' or 'end_activity_log', or specify scenarios where updates are appropriate versus creating new logs.
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 lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned (e.g., list format, error handling), or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information 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 for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of reminders, success status), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that checks data, this omission leaves the agent guessing about the result format and potential side effects, making it inadequate despite the simple parameter schema.
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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'upcomingMinutes'. The schema fully describes this parameter's purpose, type, and default value. Since the schema does all the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add extra semantic context.
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 ('check') and resource ('time reminders'), specifying what it looks for ('due or upcoming'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_time_reminder' or 'get_current_time' by focusing on checking existing reminders rather than creating or retrieving general time data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlaps with other reminder-related tools, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 prerequisites, such as needing existing reminders to check, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_activity_logs' which might also involve time tracking. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage based on 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'create' implying a write/mutation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether reminders are persistent, if they trigger notifications, rate limits, or error conditions. The phrase 'using system time' adds minimal context but leaves key behaviors unspecified for a creation tool.
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 front-loads the core action ('Create a time-based reminder') with clarifying detail ('using system time for scheduling'). There's zero wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy.
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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what happens after creation (e.g., success response, reminder ID), error handling, or system dependencies. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but behavioral and output aspects are lacking, making it inadequate for safe agent use.
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 all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., reminderTime format details). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the tool's overall purpose. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage nuances, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding 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 verb ('create') and resource ('time-based reminder') with the specific mechanism 'using system time for scheduling'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_time_reminders' (read vs. create) and time-related tools like 'get_current_time' (query vs. action). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'start_activity_log' which might also involve time scheduling.
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 prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare to siblings like 'check_time_reminders' for viewing reminders or 'update_activity_log' for modifying time-related entries. Usage is implied by the action 'create' but lacks explicit context.
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 but only mentions timestamping and duration calculation. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, error handling, or how it interacts with other tools (e.g., if it closes a log started by 'start_activity_log').
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 front-loads the core purpose ('end an activity log') and key outcomes. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 complexity of ending an activity log with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the full context.
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 documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'notes' or 'result' affect the ending process), resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 action ('end an activity log') and specifies key outcomes ('with system timestamp and calculate duration'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'start_activity_log' or 'update_activity_log'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'update_activity_log' might also involve ending).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_activity_log' or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'start_activity_log'. The description implies usage after starting an activity but lacks explicit context 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions retrieval with filtering, lacking details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the return format looks like. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this is insufficient to guide the agent effectively.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for the agent to parse quickly.
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 (5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return structure, potential errors, or how filtering interacts with the sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
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 all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., ISO 8601 format for dates, enum values for task_scope). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filtering' but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already specifies, so it meets the baseline.
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 'retrieve' and resource 'activity logs' with optional filtering, making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_current_time' or 'get_elapsed_time' which might also retrieve time-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 sibling tools like 'start_activity_log' or 'end_activity_log' for creating logs, or explain scenarios where filtering logs is preferred over other time-related queries. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, if it's read-only or has side effects, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand its behavior.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., time format, units), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool that retrieves data, more context is needed to guide effective usage by an agent.
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, with 'activityId' clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('elapsed time'), and specifies the target ('ongoing or completed activity'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_activity_logs' or 'end_activity_log', which might also relate to activity timing or status.
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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for real-time monitoring, post-analysis, or how it differs from siblings like 'get_activity_logs' or 'check_time_reminders'.
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, the description carries full burden but only mentions outcomes ('system timestamp and unique Time ID'). It fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a write operation, if it requires specific permissions, how errors are handled, or if it triggers side effects, which is inadequate for a tool that likely creates persistent data.
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 front-loads the core action and outcomes without redundancy. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters that likely performs a write operation. It lacks details on behavioral context, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand full implications.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that inputs define the activity being logged, which aligns with schema details but doesn't enhance understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 action ('Start a new activity log') and key outcomes ('system timestamp and unique Time ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'end_activity_log' or 'update_activity_log'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_time_reminder', which might share some conceptual overlap in time-related creation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_time_reminder' or 'update_activity_log'. The description implies initiation of logging but lacks context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
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 the tool 'gets' current time with defaults and timezone support, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address potential side effects, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with no 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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get current time') and adds essential qualifiers without waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter context adequately. However, it lacks details on output format and behavioral traits, which are needed for full completeness, especially without annotations.
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 input schema fully documents the 'timezone' parameter. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'defaults to system time' and 'supports any timezone', but doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.
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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'current time', specifying it defaults to system time and supports timezones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_time' or 'get_elapsed_time', which prevents a perfect score.
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 like 'convert_time' or 'check_time_reminders'. It mentions defaults and timezone support but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling comparisons, leaving usage context unclear.
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 mentions default behaviors (system time defaults) but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify the output format (e.g., whether it returns a string, object, or includes date), error handling for invalid inputs, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key default behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 complexity of time conversion (3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value format, error conditions, or practical examples, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively without trial and error.
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). The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reinforcing the default behavior mentioned in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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: 'Convert time between timezones'. It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('time between timezones'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_time' or 'get_elapsed_time', which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides some usage context by mentioning defaults ('defaults to system time for source/target'), which implies when to omit parameters. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_time' for current time retrieval or 'get_elapsed_time' for duration calculations, leaving room for ambiguity.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![chronos-protocol MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/n0zer0d4y/chronos-protocol/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/n0zer0d4y/chronos-protocol)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chronos-protocol MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/n0zer0d4y/chronos-protocol/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/n0zer0d4y/chronos-protocol)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/n0zer0d4y/chronos-protocol'

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