lunar_calendarChinese 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 | 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, 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.
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.