Skip to main content
Glama

convert_time

Read-onlyIdempotent

Converts a local time from one timezone into one or more target locations, so users can compare schedules and avoid manual timezone calculations.

Instructions

Convert a source timezone local time into one or more target locations. Requires structured from, to, and time. Do not pass a whole sentence as from or to; use answer_time_question for vague prompts. If a city is unknown or ambiguous, call search_timezones and retry with a candidate suggestedQuery or countryCode instead of guessing. date may be ISO YYYY-MM-DD, or time may include a simple human date phrase such as "3pm Tuesday". When presenting results, copy localTime.weekday, localTime.date, localTime.time12h/time24h, timezone abbreviation, and UTC offset exactly from the tool output; do not recompute or shift day names during synthesis. Route vague or mixed-intent raw prompts to answer_time_question.

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "time": "<time>"
    },
    "name": "convert_time"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes
dateNoOptional date context. Prefer ISO YYYY-MM-DD, but simple human values such as "Thursday", "tomorrow", or "next Friday" are accepted.
fromYesSource location or timezone.
timeYesSource local time, such as "9:00 AM"; may include a simple human date phrase such as "3pm Tuesday".
_endUserIdNoOptional opaque per-call end-user attribution token populated by the MCP host, not the LLM. Use a non-PII hash or token; never send raw email, name, or platform user ID.
toCountryCodesNo
fromCountryCodeNoOptional ISO country hint for the source location.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.28.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / date / description
      Previous value: -"Optional ISO date used as the conversion context."New value: +"Optional date context. Prefer ISO YYYY-MM-DD, but simple human values such as \"Thursday\", \"tomorrow\", or \"next Friday\" are accepted."
    • changedInput schema / properties / time / description
      Previous value: -"Source local time, such as \"9:00 AM\"."New value: +"Source local time, such as \"9:00 AM\"; may include a simple human date phrase such as \"3pm Tuesday\"."
  2. First observedv3.27.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the retry loop with search_timezones, and the instruction to copy localTime.weekday/date/time12h/time24h, abbreviation, and UTC offset verbatim rather than recomputing day names during synthesis. Minor gap: no mention of error handling for invalid timezones.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose before the rules, and each sentence carries actionable routing or output-handling content. It loses a point for redundancy: "use answer_time_question for vague prompts" and "Route vague or mixed-intent raw prompts to answer_time_question" say the same thing twice.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers routing, input formats, failure recovery, and how to present returned fields. It is close to complete; only the shape of multi-target results and error behavior are left implicit.

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 71%, and the description compensates by explaining accepted date forms (ISO YYYY-MM-DD or human phrases like "3pm Tuesday" embedded in time) and by tying fromCountryCode/toCountryCodes to the search_timezones retry path. This adds meaning beyond the schema's own field descriptions, though it doesn't explain alignment semantics for toCountryCodes against the target list.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: "Convert a source timezone local time into one or more target locations." It immediately distinguishes itself from the two siblings an agent would most likely confuse it with (answer_time_question for vague prompts, search_timezones for unknown cities), so the tool is identifiable without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules: don't pass whole sentences as from/to, route vague or mixed-intent prompts to answer_time_question, and call search_timezones then retry with a suggestedQuery or countryCode when a city is unknown or ambiguous. It even names the alternative to use instead of guessing.

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