Skip to main content
Glama
The-40-Thieves

codecalc

by The-40-Thieves
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Epoch Time

epoch_time
Read-onlyIdempotent

Convert epoch time to ISO 8601 UTC by entering any timestamp in seconds, milliseconds, microseconds, or nanoseconds; units are inferred automatically, yielding a readable UTC datetime.

Instructions

Epoch seconds/millis/micros/nanos to ISO 8601 UTC (implausible readings suppressed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nYesEpoch timestamp to convert to ISO 8601 UTC; units (seconds/millis/micros/nanos) are inferred from magnitude

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / n / description
      Added value: +"Epoch timestamp to convert to ISO 8601 UTC; units (seconds/millis/micros/nanos) are inferred from magnitude"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "epoch_timeDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / n / title
      Added value: +"N"
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"epoch_timeArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: output is ISO 8601 UTC and implausible readings are suppressed. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't precisely define what counts as implausible.

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?

One terse sentence carries all essential information: input forms, output format, and the suppression caveat. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Input schema fully documents the single parameter incl. unit inference, and there is an output schema. The description adds the key behavioral caveat about implausible readings. Only minor ambiguity about what counts as 'implausible', but the tool is simple and well covered by schema/annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the key behavioral detail that units are inferred from magnitude (also in schema) and that implausible values are suppressed. It doesn't duplicate the schema's parameter description, and what it adds is meaningful, so slightly above baseline.

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?

The description names a specific operation (convert epoch time) and the concrete resource transformation (seconds/millis/micros/nanos to ISO 8601 UTC). It clearly distinguishes the core use case, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to prefer this over other tools, nor any exclusions/prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected; usage context must be inferred from the schema and annotations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools