Timezone convert an ISO-8601 timestamp with Z or numeric UTC offset into an IANA timezone such as America/New_York, Europe/London or Asia/Tokyo. Returns UTC and local wall-clock representations with the target offset. Costs $0.001 USDC on Base via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datetime | Yes | ISO-8601 instant including Z or an explicit +HH:MM/-HH:MM offset. | |
| to_timezone | Yes | IANA timezone such as America/New_York. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it usefully discloses the response shape (UTC plus local wall-clock with target offset) and the paid model ($0.001 USDC on Base via x402), which an agent must know before calling. It omits error behavior for invalid IANA zones and DST edge handling, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation before the response shape and pricing. No wasted phrasing, though the pricing clause could be separated more cleanly from the functional description.
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?
For a two-parameter, enum-free conversion tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return semantics and the cost model, which is what an agent needs to call and budget for it. Only edge-case behavior (invalid zone, DST ambiguity) is left unaddressed.
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%, so both parameters are already fully documented with format constraints (Z or explicit offset; IANA zone). The description only restates the formats and adds example zone names, adding marginal value beyond the schema.
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?
States a precise verb+resource (convert an ISO-8601 timestamp into an IANA timezone) with the exact input format and target format, and gives concrete timezone examples. An agent can immediately distinguish this from nearest sibling unit-convert.
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?
Usage is implied by the stated input/output contract, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. unit-convert) for cases where a numeric offset rather than an IANA zone is needed.
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.