Chinese almanac: lunar calendar, BaZi 八字, daily 宜忌, lucky-day picker, public holidays.
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a narrow, distinct concern: bazi_chart for birth charts, cn_holiday for public holidays, huangli for daily auspicious items, lunar_calendar for lunar dates, and pick_lucky_days for selecting dates. There is no meaningful overlap; even the related huangli and pick_lucky_days are clearly separated by direction (given date vs. searching dates).
All names are lowercase snake_case, so style is consistent, but the grammatical pattern is mixed: bazi_chart and huangli are nouns, lunar_calendar is an adjective-noun, pick_lucky_days is verb-object, and what_can_you_do is a sentence. This is readable but lacks a uniform verb_noun convention.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a Chinese almanac/calendar server. Each tool covers a distinct major feature (charts, holidays, almanac, lunar info, date selection) with no redundancy, and the count is comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
The server covers the core needs of its domain: lunar conversion, public holidays, daily almanac rulings, lucky date selection, and bazi charts. There are no obvious dead ends; the addition of what_can_you_do also helps agents navigate the remaining surface, making the set feel comprehensive for its intended purpose.
八字排盘 from birth date and hour: four pillars (年月日时柱), five-element counts, 纳音, zodiac. Uses true solar-term boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datetime | Yes | Birth datetime YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral detail by noting that it uses true solar-term boundaries, which affects chart accuracy, and enumerates output elements. This is beyond the annotation-provided safety profile, making it transparent for expected 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 two short sentences, front-loads the main function, and packs relevant details (output components and the solar-term boundary method) without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, making it well-structured and concise.
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 has one parameter, complete schema documentation, explicit annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: input, purpose, and distinctive calculation logic. It does not need to explain return values, as the output schema handles that. The only minor gap is timezone handling, but that is not essential for a straightforward birth datetime input.
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 schema fully documents the only required parameter (datetime) with format YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm, providing 100% coverage. The description simply refers to 'birth date and hour' without adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 computes a BaZi (Four Pillars) chart from birth date and hour, listing key output components (four pillars, five-element counts, 纳音, zodiac). This differentiates it from sibling tools like lunar_calendar or huangli, which serve different purposes. The verb '排盘' (chart calculation) is specific and resource-oriented.
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 generating BaZi charts from birth datetime, giving clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of providing full when/not guidance. It still qualifies as clear context with no exclusions, meriting a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Is a date a Chinese public holiday, weekend, or 调休 make-up workday? Plus the next holiday.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD, default today |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds specific behavioral detail: it evaluates three categories (public holiday, weekend, workday) and returns the next holiday. This provides useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover edge cases like historical date range.
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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the complete functionality without any wasted words. It is concise and immediately understandable.
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 single-parameter tool with a rich output schema and informative annotations, the description fully conveys what the tool does. There are no notable gaps in context for an agent to select and invoke this 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 100%, with the only parameter `date` fully documented as YYYY-MM-DD with a default of today. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already carries the burden.
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's function: determining whether a date is a Chinese public holiday, weekend, or 调休 make-up workday, plus providing the next holiday. This specific scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like lunar_calendar (lunar dates) and huangli (almanac).
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 for holiday queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Given related sibling tools exist, explicit guidance on when to choose this tool would be beneficial, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Chinese almanac for a date: 宜 (auspicious activities), 忌 (avoid), 冲煞, 彭祖百忌. date omitted = today.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD, default today |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the date defaults to today, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not detail edge cases such as invalid dates or timezone handling, but the additional context is sufficient.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose (Chinese almanac for a date) and succinctly lists the key output categories. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or verbose phrasing.
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 optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so return fields need not be explained in the description. The description covers default behavior and primary outputs. Some context regarding relationship to sibling tools (e.g., lunar_calendar for lunar dates) could be useful, but the tool is self-contained enough for an agent to use 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?
The schema provides 100% coverage of the single 'date' parameter, describing it as YYYY-MM-DD with a default of today. The description repeats this default behavior, adding no further parameter-specific meaning. As schema coverage is high, the baseline of 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 identifies the tool as a Chinese almanac for a given date, listing the specific output categories (宜, 忌, 冲煞, 彭祖百忌). This differentiates it from sibling tools like lunar_calendar (lunar date conversion) and pick_lucky_days (date selection), as it focuses on daily almanac information.
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 for checking auspicious and inauspicious activities for a date, and mentions the default behavior when date is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like pick_lucky_days or lunar_calendar, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Chinese lunar calendar for any date: 农历、干支纪年、生肖、节气、节日、星座。date omitted = today.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD, default today |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the default date behavior and enumerating the types of information returned (lunar, sexagenary cycle, zodiac, solar terms, holidays, constellations), going beyond the annotations.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Chinese lunar calendar for any date') and then enumerates the specific outputs in a list. Every part is informative and there is no unnecessary wording.
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 (one optional parameter), the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers the main function, default behavior, and output content, leaving no critical gaps 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?
The schema description covers 100% of the parameter, stating 'YYYY-MM-DD, default today'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 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 a Chinese lunar calendar for any date, listing specific output types (农历, 干支纪年, 生肖, 节气, 节日, 星座). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on lunar conversion and calendar-related data, unlike bazi_chart or huangli which likely serve different purposes.
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 gives clear context that this tool is for lunar calendar information for any date, including a default behavior of 'date omitted = today'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident enough that an agent would know to select it for lunar calendar queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find auspicious days in a month for an event: 结婚/领证/搬家/开业/装修/出行/签约/订婚/安床/安葬 or any 黄历宜 term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event | Yes | Event keyword in Chinese, e.g. 搬家 | |
| month | No | YYYY-MM, default current month |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent safety. The description adds context about accepted event terms but does not disclose output format or dependency on the Chinese almanac beyond the '黄历宜' reference.
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?
Single, focused sentence with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary function and scoped by month.
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?
A simple tool with 2 params, good annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the purpose and parameter flexibility, though it does not mention behavior for invalid events or the default month (already in schema).
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 schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage). The description enriches semantics by listing concrete examples and stating 'any 黄历宜 term' accepts broader input than the schema's generic 'Event keyword in Chinese'.
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?
Clearly states the action ('Find'), target ('auspicious days'), and context ('in a month for an event'). The list of example events and 'any 黄历宜 term' broaden understanding while distinguishing it from generic calendar 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?
Provides implied usage via specific event types but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'huangli' or state when not to use. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Describe a task in plain language (any language) and get back exactly which tools on this server do it, with ready-to-run example calls — instead of reading the whole catalogue and guessing. Also returns multi-step recipes when a task needs several tools chained (invoices to a ledger, a bank statement reconciled, a messy CSV turned into a deliverable). Deterministic and free: it calls no model, costs nothing, and never runs out of quota. Call this FIRST when you are not sure what this server offers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | What you are trying to do, e.g. "reconcile a bank statement against my books" or "把一堆发票整理成能入账的表格" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral traits not visible in annotations: deterministic, calls no model, costs nothing, and never runs out of quota. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and supported by recipes, cost/quota guarantees, and when-to-use guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.
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 simple context (single required string parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers the tool's behavior, return value highlights, performance/cost characteristics, and usage context without leaving important gaps.
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 the 'task' parameter with examples, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds the nuance 'plain language (any language)' and emphasizes that example calls are generated, providing modest additional meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource: describe a task and get back exactly which tools on the server do it, with ready-to-run example calls. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the meta-guide that prevents 'reading the whole catalogue and guessing.'
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST when you are not sure what this server offers.' It also clarifies the intended use case (plain-language task discovery) and contrasts with the alternative of scanning the catalogue manually, which is sufficient for a meta-tool.
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.
what_can_you_docn_holidaybazi_charthuanglilunar_calendarpick_lucky_daysBaZi four pillars, Chinese zodiac, lunisolar calendar and almanac days for AI agents.
China holidays and lunar calendar lookup, solar-to-lunar conversion and yearly schedule.
Read-only Bazi, True Solar Time, and Chinese almanac tools in English and Traditional Chinese.
Generate BaZi charts from birth details. Explore Four Pillars, solar terms, and Luck Pillars for d…
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.