Format Duration
format_durationConvert a number of seconds into an ISO 8601 duration string and a human-readable form (keyless, offline).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seconds | Yes | Total seconds. |
format_durationConvert a number of seconds into an ISO 8601 duration string and a human-readable form (keyless, offline).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seconds | Yes | Total seconds. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "seconds": 5400
+ },
+ {
+ "seconds": 86400
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: keyless and offline operation, which supplements the annotations and aids agent decision-making.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 single parameter, high schema coverage, and clear annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, its outputs, and operational context (keyless, offline). No additional information is needed.
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 coverage is 100% with a description of 'Total seconds.' The description repeats 'number of seconds' but does not add additional constraints or format details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 converts seconds to both ISO 8601 duration and human-readable form, with additional context of being keyless and offline. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling parse_duration by specifying the direction of conversion.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like parse_duration. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage, but lacking direct guidance lowers the score.
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.
The tool set includes several overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve very similar purposes with only subtle differences in behavior (beta/grounded). Additionally, deep_research and validate_claim partially overlap with these. The prediction market tools are numerous but distinct, and memory/duration tools are clear. Overall, an agent would face some confusion when selecting among the ask_pipeworx variants.
Most tools use consistent underscore_case with descriptive verb_noun patterns (e.g., list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim). A few memory and subscription tools are single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe, unsubscribe), which deviates slightly but remains readable. Overall naming is predictable and clear.
With 33 tools, the server is on the heavier side. The server covers a broad scope (data queries, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, utilities, subscriptions), which justifies many tools, but some feel redundant (e.g., three variants of ask_pipeworx, multiple polymarket edge tools). A more focused set (around 20-25) would be more typical for coherence.
The tool surface is extensive, covering factual Q&A via a universal router, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and utilities. The meta-tool ask_pipeworx provides access to thousands of structured sources, so most data needs are addressable. Minor gaps include no direct tool for specific SEC filing retrieval beyond the meta-router, but this is covered indirectly.