timestampReturns the current time, or converts between a Unix timestamp (seconds) and an ISO date. Provide unix or date, or neither for the current time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date/time string to convert to a Unix timestamp. Provide either unix or date, not both. | |
| unix | No | Unix timestamp (seconds since epoch) to convert to a human-readable date. Provide either unix or date, not both. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / date / descriptionPrevious value: -""New value: +"Date/time string to convert to a Unix timestamp. Provide either unix or date, not both."Input schema / properties / unix / descriptionPrevious value: -""New value: +"Unix timestamp (seconds since epoch) to convert to a human-readable date. Provide either unix or date, not both."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the current-time fallback but not the output format for the date-to-unix direction or error behavior, so it adds modest value.
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?
A single tight sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and the parameter rule second. Nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description should ideally state return formats; it names ISO dates for one direction but leaves the timestamp output format implicit. For a two-parameter, zero-required utility this is nearly complete.
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% and both parameters already document their direction and mutual exclusivity. The description restates the same exclusivity rule without adding format or parsing details, so baseline 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?
States a specific resource and two concrete behaviors: returning the current time and converting between Unix timestamps and ISO dates. An agent can immediately tell this apart from unrelated siblings like uuid or color.
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?
Explicitly says to provide unix or date, or neither for the current time, which tells the agent the valid invocation modes. It lacks guidance on what happens with ambiguous or malformed input, but for a simple utility this is clear context.
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.