Convert a specific date/time from one IANA timezone to another. Accepts ISO 8601 or natural language ('next Tuesday 3pm'). Returns the converted datetime with its UTC offset, zone abbreviation and DST flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Target IANA timezone. | |
| from | Yes | Source IANA timezone. | |
| datetime | Yes | ISO 8601 or natural language, e.g. "2026-07-09T15:30" or "next Tuesday 3pm". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses input formats and return value details (converted datetime, UTC offset, zone abbreviation, DST flag) but does not mention potential pitfalls like handling of ambiguous times, invalid timezone names, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It consists of two sentences with no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no enums, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input formats, and what is returned. It is fairly complete but could be improved by noting error handling or prerequisites like valid timezone names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description enhances this by providing an example of natural language input and explaining the return value, adding context beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, so this merits a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Convert', the resource 'date/time', and the scope 'from one IANA timezone to another'. It also specifies acceptable input formats and what is returned, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_timezones or convert_batch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the tool's context (single conversion, specific input formats) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like convert_batch or date_math. No direct 'when not to use' or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: conversion (single and batch), arithmetic, meeting scheduling, holiday checking, timezone lookup, current time, and offset. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., convert_batch, list_timezones, is_holiday). Minor variations like 'now_in' and 'tz_offset' still adhere to the pattern.
Nine tools is ideal for a timezone toolkit. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without being excessive or insufficient for the domain's scope.
The toolset covers all major timezone operations: conversion, arithmetic, current time, offset, discovery, holidays, and meeting slot calculation. No obvious gaps for common use cases.