China holidays and lunar calendar lookup, solar-to-lunar conversion and yearly schedule.
列出指定年份的全部中国法定节假日安排，包括放假日期和调休上班日期。支持2025、2026年
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses what data is returned (holiday dates and make-up work dates) and the supported year range, but does not mention the return format, error behavior for unsupported years, or any read-only guarantees. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but not fully transparent.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output contents, then adds the year limitation. Every clause provides useful information with no repetition or filler.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately states what the tool returns and which years are valid. It could be slightly more complete by describing the output format, but for a straightforward list operation the core contextual needs are met.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by specifying that the year parameter supports 2025 and 2026, which is meaningful validation context beyond the bare integer schema. It does not exhaustively define the year range, but the supported-year statement significantly clarifies parameter usage.
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 states a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('全部中国法定节假日安排'), and clarifies the scope by specifying it covers both holiday dates and make-up work dates. '支持2025、2026年' bounds the supported years. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like query_holiday via the '全部' listing scope.
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 implies usage: use this tool when needing all statutory holiday arrangements for a supported year. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over query_holiday or solar_to_lunar, nor provide exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
查询指定公历日期的中国法定节假日或调休安排，同时返回农历信息。支持2025、2026年。参数date格式：YYYY-MM-DD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the supported year range and date format, but it does not explain behavior for unsupported dates, error handling, output structure, or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple query tool this is partially sufficient but still leaves notable unknowns.
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 one tight sentence that packs in the purpose, returned lunar information, supported years, and parameter format. There is no redundant text, and the important details are front-loaded before the parameter note.
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?
For a tool with a single parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core calling contract: what date to use, what years are supported, and what kind of data comes back. However, it does not describe the response shape, what happens for unsupported dates, or the exact holiday/adjustment fields, leaving some gaps for an agent that must interpret the result.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter's meaning (a Gregorian date to query) and providing the required format (YYYY-MM-DD). It also constrains the valid range via the supported-year note, which adds real value beyond the raw schema.
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 states a specific verb ('查询'/'query'), a clear resource (Chinese statutory holidays and workday adjustments for a given Gregorian date), and adds that lunar calendar info is also returned. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like list_holidays and solar_to_lunar because this tool targets a single date and combines holiday/lunar context.
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 implies the tool is for querying a specific date and states the supported years (2025, 2026), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_holidays or solar_to_lunar, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is clear but the routing guidance is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
将公历日期转换为农历日期，返回农历年月日、是否闰月、生肖、干支等信息
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| month | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does reveal what the tool returns (lunar year/month/day, leap-month status, zodiac, ganzhi), but it omits behavioral details such as handling of invalid dates, supported date ranges, or timezone assumptions. This is acceptable for a simple conversion tool but not fully transparent.
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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core action and summarizes the output fields without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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?
For a simple date-conversion tool, the description covers the essential input and output semantics. The schema provides the required parameters, and the description explains the result categories. It lacks edge-case and validity-range details, but nothing critical seems missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the useful fact that the inputs represent a Gregorian date, which clarifies the meaning of year, month, and day. However, it does not describe per-parameter constraints, valid ranges, or format expectations.
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 states a clear verb ('converts'), a specific input type (solar/Gregorian date), and a specific output resource (lunar date with year, month, day, leap-month flag, zodiac, and ganzhi). This cleanly distinguishes it from the holiday-related sibling tools.
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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: whenever a Gregorian date needs to be converted to a lunar date. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use case is unambiguous given the sibling tools are holiday-focused.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
list_holidaysquery_holidaysolar_to_lunarClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Chinese almanac: lunar calendar, BaZi 八字, daily 宜忌, lucky-day picker, public holidays.
BaZi four pillars, Chinese zodiac, lunisolar calendar and almanac days for AI agents.
Read-only Bazi, True Solar Time, and Chinese almanac tools in English and Traditional Chinese.
China facts a server outside China cannot get: real mainland reachability, 调休 holidays, ID/phone val
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing annual holidays, querying a specific date's holiday status, and converting solar to lunar dates. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_holidays, query_holiday), but solar_to_lunar deviates as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led name. The snake_case style is consistent, but the pattern is not uniform.
Three tools is a small but reasonable set for a focused Chinese calendar and holiday server. Each tool provides a distinct function and covers the core use cases without unnecessary bloat.
The server covers annual holiday lists, single-day holiday lookup, and solar-to-lunar conversion, but it lacks a lunar-to-solar conversion, which is a natural counterpart. The limited 2025-2026 year range also restricts completeness for a general calendar server.