relative_timeCalculates the relative time from now to a given date-time string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time | Yes | The time to compare (format: YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relativeTime | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / time / descriptionPrevious value: -"The time to compare. Format: YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss"New value: +"The time to compare (format: YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss)"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "relativeTime": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "relativeTime"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true) already disclose the safe read-only behavior. The description adds that it computes relative time from now, but it does not provide deeper behavioral context such as timezone handling, date parsing details, or the exact nature of the output. This is adequate but not rich.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It explains the core function and the input format. It does not add extra contextual details like result examples or edge cases, but these are not needed given the simplicity and output schema.
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 has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'time' parameter including format. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which already fully documents the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter semantics.
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 tool's function: 'Calculates the relative time from now to a given date-time string.' The verb 'calculates' and the resource 'relative time' are specific, and this tool is distinguishable from siblings like current_time or get_timestamp by focusing on relative time.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you need relative time from now to a given date), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusions. The tool's purpose alone suggests usage, but there is no direct 'use this when...' or mention of sibling tools.
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.