huangliChinese 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 | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct: bazi_chart, lunar_calendar, huangli, pick_lucky_days all relate to Chinese calendrical/astrological concepts but have different purposes (birth chart, lunar info, almanac, lucky day selection). However, bazi_chart and lunar_calendar both touch on 干支/zodiac; pick_lucky_days could overlap with huangli. Minor ambiguity, but descriptions clarify.
Tool names are all snake_case and mostly descriptive, but they don't follow a strong verb_noun pattern (e.g., pick_lucky_days is verb+noun, but bazi_chart and phone_info are noun-like). Slight inconsistency in style, but the pattern is predictable enough.
10 tools is well-scoped for a China-focused utility server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose (ID validation, phone info, holidays, calendar, pinyin, network reachability), and the count feels reasonable without being bloated or thin.
The server covers a broad range of China-specific utilities, but there are gaps: no tool for Chinese address parsing, no tool for bank card validation, no tool for translation. While the existing set covers common needs, the 'china' theme could benefit from more coverage. Also, what_can_you_do suggests recipes but the actual tool set lacks some common use cases.