Chinese calendar for a date: lunar date (with leap month), zodiac, day officer 建除, yellow/black path, six-day cycle — computed on Beijing time
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "calendar"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD, 1901–2199; defaults to today (Beijing) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: everything is 'computed on Beijing time' and the default date resolves to today in Beijing, which matters for an agent reasoning about dates. It does not state that the operation is a pure read with no side effects, nor anything about return shape or error behavior for out-of-range dates.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's scope ('Chinese calendar for a date') followed by the output list, with no filler. It reads as a fragment rather than prose, but every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter, zero-required tool with full schema coverage and a reliable default, the description supplies enough: it enumerates all returned fields and pins the time basis. Since no output schema exists, one could argue the return formatting could be spelled out more explicitly, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in-schema (format, range, default). The description only reinforces the Beijing-time basis for the default, adding nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Names a specific resource (Chinese calendar for a date) and enumerates the concrete outputs: lunar date with leap month, zodiac, day officer 建除, yellow/black path, six-day cycle. This goes well beyond a restatement of 'calendar'. It stops short of 5 because it never contrasts itself with near siblings like ganzhi or solar_terms, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'for a date' plus the 1901–2199 range in the schema suggests when the tool applies, and the enumerated outputs hint at what it is good for. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling such as ganzhi for sexagenary-cycle questions.
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.