Skip to main content
Glama
rocnubie

reactiontimetest-mcp

by rocnubie
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

Reaction Time Test MCP Server

Reaction Time Test - How Fast Are Your Reflexes?

MCP Badge License: MIT Stdio Transport Read Only MCP

A Model Context Protocol server that exposes the canonical Reaction Time Test knowledge surface — browser tests, measurement rules, and score interpretation, FAQ, official links — to MCP-compatible AI clients such as Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, and Continue. Read-only, no API keys, no quota, ~50 ms cold start.

Official website: https://reactiontimetest.click

⏱️ About Reaction Time Test

Reaction Time Test is a free browser test built around five rounds of waiting for green and tapping as quickly as possible. It reports average milliseconds, rank context, a daily streak, and a shareable result card without requiring an account.

The site also offers click speed, aim, memory, number memory, and typing tests. Scores and streaks stay in browser localStorage, and the application has no server endpoint for test results. This MCP explains the test catalog and measurement rules as read-only context; it cannot run a test or measure the user's reflexes.

Use the live test for an actual result. A browser reaction score is a lightweight game metric, not a medical diagnosis or a guarantee of performance in another setting.

Related MCP server: LessonLab MCP Server

Tools

get_test_overview

Return the test catalog and documented measurement or scoring rules exposed by the site. (Reaction Time Test)

Input: no parameters. Returns: text/markdown.

get_official_links

Return the canonical list of official links for Reaction Time Test (website, support, docs when available).

Input: no parameters. Returns: text/markdown.

Resources

  • site://reactiontimetest/tests — Public test catalog, measurement workflow, and score-interpretation boundaries.

  • site://reactiontimetest/faq — Short FAQ generated from public site metadata.

  • site://reactiontimetest/links — Canonical URLs to share with users.

Prompts

tell_me_about_reactiontimetest

Summarize what the site is, who it's for, and how it works. — Reaction Time Test

run_a_test_reactiontimetest

Prepare for a browser test and interpret its result conservatively. — Reaction Time Test

Installation

Install via Smithery

npx -y @smithery/cli install reactiontimetest-mcp --client claude

(Replace claude with cursor, windsurf, or continue for those clients.)

Install from source

git clone https://github.com/rocnubie/reactiontimetest-mcp.git
cd reactiontimetest-mcp
pnpm install

Then add to your MCP client config (claude_desktop_config.json for Claude Desktop, mcp.json for Cursor / Windsurf / Continue):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "reactiontimetest-mcp": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": [
        "/absolute/path/to/reactiontimetest-mcp/src/index.mjs"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Debug with MCP Inspector

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node src/index.mjs

Official Links

Development

pnpm install
pnpm start                 # run the server over stdio

License

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
get_test_overviewA

Return the test catalog and documented measurement or scoring rules exposed by the site. (Reaction Time Test)

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Return's data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, auth requirements, or potential side effects. For a zero-parameter tool, the lack of behavioral details is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant words. Every part earns its place, providing clear purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns. It could mention the format or structure of the catalog, but the context is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a sibling.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter information since none exist. According to the rubric, baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'test catalog and documented measurement or scoring rules', with a parenthetical specification for 'Reaction Time Test'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_official_links', which likely returns links rather than test overviews.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The only sibling is named but no comparison is made.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedget_official_links
    • First observedget_test_overview
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: one provides test overview and rules, the other provides official links. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase, maintaining a uniform and predictable naming pattern.

Tool Count4/5

With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but appropriately scoped for an informational purpose. Slightly low but still reasonable for a focused utility.

Completeness3/5

The server covers providing test overview and links, but lacks any interactive or result-related functionality (e.g., running a test), which could be expected from a reaction time test server.

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

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/rocnubie/reactiontimetest-mcp'

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