[duvera · risk:low] Public holidays for a given year and ISO country code (e.g. 2026 + "US"). Includes national and regional holidays with dates and names. No account required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | Calendar year, e.g. 2026. | |
| country | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, e.g. "US", "DE", "JP". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'risk:low' and 'No account required', which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose other aspects like rate limits, data source, or output format. More detail would improve transparency.
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 two sentences long, direct, and free of unnecessary information. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, few parameters), the description adequately covers its purpose and basic constraints. It could benefit from a brief note on the output structure (e.g., list of holidays with fields), but the current level is sufficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (year and country). The description adds marginal value beyond the schema, providing an example (2026) and clarifying the country code format (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool provides public holidays for a given year and ISO country code, listing types of holidays (national and regional) with dates and names. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which overlap in function.
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?
The description mentions 'No account required' as a usage condition but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternative tools or when not to use. Usage is implied by the tool's specific purpose.
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.
Each tool is prefixed with its service name, and within each service, tools have distinct actions (e.g., mail_read vs. availability_find). The duvera tools cover different subdomains like dev, finance, and food with no overlap, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow the pattern service__action_object or service__category_action, using lowercase with underscores. The order of verb and noun varies slightly (e.g., package_track vs. boardingpass_show), but the naming is highly predictable and readable.
With 52 tools, the server is large but justified as a gateway aggregating many external services. Each tool corresponds to a common task for its service, so no tool feels extraneous, though the total number is high.
The tool surface covers a wide array of services but only provides one or two basic operations per service (mostly read-only). While this suits a quick-lookup gateway, deeper workflows (e.g., creating or updating resources) are missing, leaving gaps for many use cases.
