devutils-mcp-server

timestamp_to_date

Convert Unix timestamps (seconds or milliseconds) to human-readable ISO 8601 date strings, with optional IANA timezone support for accurate local time representation.

Instructions

Convert a Unix timestamp (seconds or milliseconds) to a human-readable ISO 8601 date string.

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": {
      "timestamp": "<timestamp>"
    },
    "name": "timestamp_to_date"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`timestamp`	Yes	Unix timestamp (seconds or milliseconds)
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone (e.g., 'America/New_York', 'Europe/London', default: UTC)	UTC

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 24, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the input type and output format, which is adequate for a simple conversion. However, it does not explain how the tool distinguishes between seconds and milliseconds, or describe error handling for invalid inputs. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence (16 words) with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Convert' and immediately states the key details (input and output). Highly concise and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the output format. It could be slightly more precise (e.g., specifying the exact ISO 8601 format), but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the result. Timezone handling is implied by the input parameter.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds the output format ('human-readable ISO 8601 date string') and the fact that it accepts both seconds and milliseconds, going beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the added value justifies a 4.

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 Unix timestamp') and the output format ('human-readable ISO 8601 date string'). It specifies that it handles both seconds and milliseconds, distinguishing it from the sibling 'date_to_timestamp'.

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?

The description implies usage when you have a Unix timestamp and need a date string, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor provide guidance on handling seconds vs milliseconds or timezone selection.

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