vietnamese-calendar
Server Details
Date conversion between solar date (Gregorian calendar) to lunar date (Vietnamese calendar)
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have perfectly distinct and complementary purposes: one converts lunar to solar dates, and the other converts solar to lunar dates. There is no overlap or ambiguity; each tool serves a clear, opposite function in the date conversion process.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'convert_date' as the prefix, followed by the specific direction ('lunar2solar' or 'solar2lunar'). The naming is uniform, predictable, and clearly indicates the action and transformation involved.
With only 2 tools, the set feels minimal but appropriate for the narrow domain of date conversion between Vietnamese lunar and Gregorian calendars. However, it might be considered thin if additional calendar-related operations (e.g., holiday lookup or date validation) are expected, though it adequately covers the core bidirectional conversion.
For the specific purpose of converting between Vietnamese lunar and Gregorian dates, the tool set is complete with bidirectional coverage. A minor gap might be the lack of tools for related calendar features like checking holidays or validating dates, but the essential conversion operations are fully provided without dead ends.
Available Tools
2 toolsconvert_date_lunar2solarAInspect
Convert a lunar date (Vietnamese calendar) to solar date (Gregorian calendar)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Lunar date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. 2026-01-01 for Tet) |
Tool Definition Quality
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 discloses the basic behavior (conversion between calendar systems) but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. The description does not contradict any annotations, but it provides only minimal behavioral context beyond the core function.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and distinguishes from siblings, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral traits. For a conversion tool, more context on what the output looks like would be beneficial, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'date' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of lunar date formats or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 specific verb 'convert' and the resources involved: 'lunar date (Vietnamese calendar)' to 'solar date (Gregorian calendar)'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'convert_date_solar2lunar' by specifying the opposite direction of conversion, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.
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 when to use this tool (for converting from lunar to solar dates) and the sibling tool name suggests an alternative for the reverse conversion. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide detailed contextual exclusions, such as handling invalid dates or edge cases, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
convert_date_solar2lunarAInspect
Convert a solar date (Gregorian calendar) to lunar date (Vietnamese calendar)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Solar (Gregorian) date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. 2026-04-18) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the core conversion behavior but doesn't disclose additional traits like error handling, timezone considerations, validation rules, or what happens with invalid dates. The description is accurate but lacks behavioral depth.
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, efficient sentence that contains no wasted words. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose and differentiates it from its sibling, making it perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this simple conversion 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 single-parameter conversion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it doesn't describe the return format or potential edge cases, leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool that performs calendar conversions.
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 coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'date' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without providing extra value.
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 specific action ('convert'), the input resource ('solar date (Gregorian calendar)'), and the output resource ('lunar date (Vietnamese calendar)'). It precisely distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'convert_date_lunar2solar' by specifying the direction of conversion.
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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool by specifying it converts from solar to lunar, making it clear this is the alternative to 'convert_date_lunar2solar' which converts in the opposite direction. This provides perfect sibling differentiation without needing additional exclusion statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!