Parse a messy date and convert it to a timezone you choose.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "date_timezone"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and comes up short. It does not say which date formats count as "messy," whether a default timezone exists when none is given, or whether the timezone must be an IANA name versus a UTC offset. For a stateless conversion utility this is a notable gap, though "parse and convert" at least confirms it is non-destructive and read-only.
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, front-loaded with the action and ending with the transformation goal. Nothing is redundant and nothing pads the definition.
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 annotations, no output schema, and an input schema that declares zero properties, the description is the only source of truth and it is thin. An agent cannot determine accepted date formats, timezone identifier conventions, or what the response looks like. For a POST endpoint with an open body, more specification is required.
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 schema declares no properties at all, only an open POST body with additionalProperties true, so the 100% coverage figure is vacuous and the agent gets no field names from structured data. The description does identify the two conceptual inputs, a date and a target timezone, which is genuine added meaning. It does not give field names or accepted formats, leaving the agent to guess keys when invoking the endpoint.
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 names a specific verb pair and resource: parse a messy date, then convert it to a chosen timezone. That is materially clearer than the sibling utility names, which reveal nothing on their own. It stops short of a 5 only because it does not contrast itself with nearby tools such as cron_parse or unit_convert.
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?
"Parse a messy date" implies the use case (loose or nonstandard date input) and "convert it to a timezone you choose" implies the second use case, so usage is inferable. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as valid timezone identifiers, and no named alternative for cases the tool does not cover.
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.