Returns 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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior when neither parameter is provided (returns current time) and the conversion direction. It doesn't cover edge cases like invalid input, but that's a minor gap for a simple utility.
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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then gives parameter guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 simple, read-only utility with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains both modes of operation and the default behavior, which is all an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the 'or neither' default behavior, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema states. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: returns the current time, or converts between Unix timestamp and ISO date. It clearly distinguishes the tool's dual function and is unambiguous among the sibling tools, none of which handle time 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 gives clear invocation context: provide unix, date, or neither. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no similar sibling exists, so the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it.
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.