devutils-mcp-server

date_to_timestamp

Convert any date string to a Unix timestamp. Accepts ISO 8601 and common formats like '2024-01-15T10:30:00Z'.

Instructions

Convert a date string to a Unix timestamp. Accepts ISO 8601 and common date formats.

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": {
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "date_to_timestamp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Date string (e.g., '2024-01-15T10:30:00Z', '2024-01-15', 'January 15, 2024')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It does not specify how invalid date strings are handled (error vs null), timezone assumptions (UTC vs local), or whether the output is in seconds or milliseconds. Critical behaviors are missing.

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 a single, concise sentence (13 words) that states the core purpose and format acceptance. However, it could add a bit more detail (e.g., output unit) without becoming overly verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and input format. However, it omits important context like timezone handling, error behavior, and precision of output, which limits completeness for an agent.

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?

The input schema already provides clear parameter description with examples. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning support for 'common date formats' beyond ISO 8601, which broadens understanding.

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's action ('convert a date string to a Unix timestamp') and specifies acceptable input formats (ISO 8601 and common date formats). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'timestamp_to_date'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The sibling 'timestamp_to_date' is the reverse operation, but this relationship is not indicated. Usage is implied but not guided.

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