get_timestampConverts a date-time string to a Unix timestamp in milliseconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time | No | The time to convert (format: YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss). Defaults to current time |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timestamp | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / time / descriptionPrevious value: -"The time to convert. Format: YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss"New value: +"The time to convert (format: YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss). Defaults to current time"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "timestamp": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "timestamp"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a pure conversion operation. It adds useful context about the output unit (milliseconds) and input format, going beyond the annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential information efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description, combined with structured data, fully specifies behavior without missing critical details.
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?
The input schema provides complete documentation for the sole parameter 'time', including format and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb 'converts' and resource 'date-time string to a Unix timestamp in milliseconds', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like current_time (retrieves current time) and relative_time (calculates relative times).
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 clearly implies use for converting date-time strings to Unix timestamps, but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives such as convert_time. This is clear context without exclusions.
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.