Create a hybrid timestamp from a gateway ID and NTP drift bound, producing a logical-physical time value for trusted event ordering and uncertainty estimation.
Create a gateway-issued hybrid timestamp (Consilium Q1: HLC + NTP uncertainty).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drift_ms | No | NTP drift bound in milliseconds | |
| gateway_id | Yes | Gateway issuing the timestamp |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the timestamp composition (HLC + NTP uncertainty) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, persistence, or return behavior. For a creation tool, this is a notable gap.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key distinguishing detail. It contains no fluff or redundancy.
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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate for a basic create operation. However, it does not explain what is returned (e.g., timestamp value, ID, confirmation) nor any usage context, leaving minor gaps.
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%, and the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource 'hybrid timestamp' with a qualifier 'gateway-issued' and a technical parenthetical 'HLC + NTP uncertainty'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compare_timestamps.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.