Skip to main content
Glama
laszlopere

mcp-bytesmith

time_convert

Convert timestamps between formats like ISO 8601, RFC 2822, Unix epoch, and time zones. Specify input format and time zone, output format and zone, returns converted timestamp and detection details.

Instructions

Convert a timestamp between textual formats (ISO 8601/RFC 2822/HTTP/unix/strftime) and time zones.

Parses value per from_format (auto sniffs iso8601/rfc2822/http/unix), anchors a NAIVE result with from_zone (an input that already carries an offset ignores it), shifts the instant into to_zone, and renders it as to_format. Formats: iso8601 (RFC 3339), rfc2822, http (IMF-fixdate, always GMT), unix/unix_ms/unix_us/unix_ns epoch, and strftime (needs format_pattern on whichever side uses it). Zones are an IANA name (Europe/Budapest), UTC, or a ±HH:MM offset. Returns {result, from_format, to_format, zone, unix}; from_format echoes the detected format under auto, unix is the integer epoch-seconds anchor. Example: time_convert("1700000000", "iso8601") -> result "2023-11-14T22:13:20+00:00"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYesTimestamp to convert, parsed per `from_format`.
to_formatYesOutput format: iso8601 (RFC 3339), rfc2822, http (IMF-fixdate, always GMT), unix/unix_ms/unix_us/unix_ns epoch, or strftime (needs `format_pattern`).
from_formatNoFormat of `value`; default 'auto' sniffs iso8601/rfc2822/http/unix. strftime needs `format_pattern`.auto
from_zoneNoZone anchoring a naive input (no offset): an IANA name (Europe/Budapest), UTC, or a ±HH:MM offset. Default 'UTC'. Ignored when the input already carries an offset.UTC
to_zoneNoZone to shift the instant into before rendering; IANA name, UTC, or ±HH:MM offset. Default 'UTC'. Ignored for http (always GMT).UTC
format_patternNostrptime/strftime pattern, required on whichever side (from_format/to_format) is 'strftime'. Default None.
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It details parsing, anchoring naive inputs with from_zone, shifting to to_zone, rendering to_format, and return structure (result, from_format, to_format, zone, unix). It also explains edge cases like offset-carrying inputs and http overriding to_zone.

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?

The description is detailed and well-structured, starting with purpose and then parameter behavior. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds necessary detail. Could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return object format. It covers all parameters, their interactions, and edge cases. The tool's behavior is completely specified for an agent to use correctly.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the processing flow: parsing per from_format, anchoring with from_zone, shifting to to_zone, and rendering. It clarifies when from_zone is ignored and that http overrides to_zone, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool converts timestamps between textual formats and time zones, listing specific formats (ISO 8601, RFC 2822, HTTP, unix, strftime) and zone handling. It is distinct from sibling tools which are all encoding, hashing, or data transformation tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use the tool for timestamp conversion, including nuances like ignoring from_zone for non-naive inputs and http format always using GMT. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but siblings are unrelated, making the context clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/laszlopere/mcp-bytesmith'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server