Utility MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by '获取'/'get'), returns an integer in seconds, is globally timezone-agnostic, and references the Unix epoch. It doesn't mention rate limits or errors, but for a simple timestamp tool, this is adequate.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clarifying details about the timestamp's nature and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bilingual format (Chinese/English) is efficient for clarity.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the return value (integer seconds), and key behavioral aspects. With an output schema, it doesn't need to detail return structure further.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed, aligning with the schema. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('获取'/'get') and resource ('当前Unix时间戳'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns seconds (vs. format_timestamp which likely formats, and get_current_time which might return a different representation). It explicitly mentions the Unix epoch reference point.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to get the current Unix timestamp in seconds, globally consistent across time zones. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic differentiation from siblings.

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