Everyday DevTools MCP

timestamp_convert

Convert Unix timestamps in seconds or milliseconds to UTC dates, or turn ISO date strings into Unix timestamps for local, offline developer workflows.

Instructions

Convert a Unix timestamp (seconds or ms) to a UTC date, or an ISO date string to a Unix timestamp.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "timestamp_convert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavior: input-format-driven direction and acceptance of both second and millisecond epochs. It omits the exact output format, how naive ISO strings are interpreted, and error behavior for unparseable input, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, leading with the primary direction and immediately covering the reverse case and accepted formats.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for describing the return value, and 'a UTC date' and 'a Unix timestamp' leave the concrete output format (e.g., ISO 8601 string vs epoch integer) unspecified. For a simple one-parameter conversion tool this is nearly sufficient, but the return-format gap matters for chaining calls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only declares 'value' as an untyped-purpose string, so the description is doing real work by specifying that it accepts a Unix timestamp in seconds or ms or an ISO date string. That is meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it does not describe edge cases like numeric strings versus text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Convert') and both directions of the resource (Unix timestamp ↔ UTC date / ISO string), including accepted units (seconds or ms). The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other utility siblings, which it doesn't really need to since they operate on unrelated types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that the direction is chosen by the input format rather than a flag. There is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives or what happens with ambiguous inputs, so the guidance is adequate but thin.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server