Inspect and convert Unix epoch timestamps in seconds or milliseconds to UTC, ISO 8601, and localized human time.
Inspect and convert a Unix epoch timestamp (seconds or milliseconds) to UTC, ISO 8601, and localized human time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Unix epoch timestamp in seconds (10 digits) or milliseconds (13 digits), e.g. '1713456789' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.4Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / value / descriptionPrevious value: -"Unix timestamp in seconds or ms"New value: +"Unix epoch timestamp in seconds (10 digits) or milliseconds (13 digits), e.g. '1713456789'"v1.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful fact that it returns UTC, ISO 8601, and localized human time, but says nothing about how 'localized' time is determined (server timezone vs. client) or about handling of ambiguous/invalid values.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource and closes with the concrete outputs. Every clause earns its place with no 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?
For a one-parameter, side-effect-free utility with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the return formats and the annotations cover safety. It falls short only on ambiguity handling and how the localized rendering is anchored.
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 single parameter already documents the 10-digit seconds / 13-digit milliseconds convention with an example. The description merely repeats 'seconds or milliseconds', adding no syntax, edge-case, or validation detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb pair (inspect/convert) and a precise resource (Unix epoch timestamp) plus the output formats produced. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling castov_timezone, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though castov_timezone is an obvious adjacent tool. The only routing signal is the implicit input type (an epoch timestamp), which is weak guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.