Convert Unix timestamp to datetime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timestamp | Yes | Unix timestamp | |
| timezone_name | No | Timezone for output | UTC |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| time | Yes | ||
| datetime | Yes | ||
| timezone | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention key details such as output format (e.g., ISO 8601 string), timezone handling beyond defaults, or supported timestamp range. This is insufficient for the agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence. While it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections), it is efficient and front-loaded with the essential verb-resource pair. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
Despite low complexity and a high schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value format (though output schema exists, it is not shown here), and it fails to differentiate this tool from the many date/time sibling tools. The agent may struggle to choose the correct tool without additional context.
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?
The input schema already describes both parameters comprehensively (timestamp is required integer, timezone_name is optional string with default UTC). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the core action 'Convert Unix timestamp to datetime' with a specific verb and resource. It is easy to understand the basic function, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like convert_timestamp or datetime_to_unix, which may have overlapping functionality.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., convert_timestamp, datetime_to_unix). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple random generators (random_integer, random_number), duplicate hashing functions (hash_md5, md5_checksum), and near-identical tools (compare, compare_2, compare_decimals). The sheer number of tools and lack of clear boundaries make it difficult for an agent to differentiate.
Naming is highly inconsistent. There are duplicate tools with different names (camel_case vs to_camel_case, slug vs slugify), arbitrary suffixes like '_2', and mixing of patterns (e.g., generate_password vs password_entropy). No clear convention is followed.
With 572 tools, the server is massively overpopulated for any coherent purpose. It includes trivial endpoints (true_endpoint, null, hello_world) and numerous duplicates, far exceeding a well-scoped utility set.
While the server covers many domains (math, strings, dates, colors, etc.), the presence of duplicate and trivial tools indicates a lack of thoughtful curation. There are gaps in basic operations (e.g., no dedicated file or network tools), and many tools are redundant.
