Skip to main content
Glama

zerm

by dev.zerm

Convert Time Between Zones

tz_convert
Read-only

Deterministic timezone conversion: convert a timestamp between IANA timezones with full DST awareness. Models routinely miscalculate DST transitions - this gives exact results. Returns the converted time, UTC offsets for both zones on that date, and whether DST is active.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoTarget IANA timezone, e.g. "Asia/Tokyo". Alias: to_tz.
fromNoSource IANA timezone, e.g. "America/Chicago". Default UTC. Alias: from_tz.
timeNoAlias for datetime.
to_tzNoAlias for to.
from_tzNoAlias for from.
datetimeNoISO 8601 datetime to convert, e.g. "2025-03-09T02:30:00". Aliases: timestamp, time.
timestampNoAlias for datetime.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description adds return value disclosure (converted time, UTC offsets, DST flag) and emphasizes determinism. Annotations already indicate read-only; no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: function, rationale, return values. No redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, return behavior, and motivation. With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the return value description is helpful. Minor gaps like default timezone are in 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?

Schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so baseline 3. Description does not add parameter-specific details beyond mentioning IANA timezones.

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?

Description states 'convert a timestamp between IANA timezones with full DST awareness,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tz_info by focusing on conversion and exactness.

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?

Provides clear context: use this for exact DST-aware conversions when models might miscalculate. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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

All zerm toolsInspect
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 has a unique, clearly defined purpose (counters, cron, DNS, email, fixtures, webhooks, KV, locks, name checks, regex, timers, timezone, URL checks). There is no functional overlap; even closely related tools like timer_schedule and cron_next are clearly separated by descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant naming pattern is <resource>_<action> (e.g., inbox_create, kv_get, lock_acquire, tz_convert). A few tools deviate, such as counter_next and cron_next (resource_qualifier), fixture_rows (resource_noun), and request_tool (verb_noun), but these are minor and do not obscure the overall pattern.

Tool Count3/5

At 24 tools, the server exceeds the typical 3-15 range, leaning heavy. The tools cover many independent utility categories, each with a minimal set of operations, but the overall count feels slightly excessive for a single server, though it is justified by the broad scope.

Completeness4/5

The server provides complete lifecycles for its functional areas: KV (set/get/list/delete), inbox (create/poll/delete), locks (acquire/release), timers (schedule/status/cancel/verify). Each utility is self-contained, and the request_tool offers a path for extending the surface. No obvious gaps or dead ends within the intended domain.

Resources