Return the ISO 8601 week number, week year and day of year for a date. Pure CPU, instant.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"date": "<date>"
},
"name": "week_number"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date (default today) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / dateAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Date (default today)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "date"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It helpfully states that the operation is pure CPU and instant, implying no side effects and fast execution, but it does not describe input format expectations or return structure beyond naming the three output values.
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 with no wasted wording. The core purpose is front-loaded and the performance note is brief.
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 pure computation tool with no output schema, naming the three returned values is useful. However, the description does not specify the accepted date input format, which is important for correct invocation, so it is only minimally complete.
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%, so the single date parameter is already documented structurally. The description adds only that the result is computed 'for a date' and does not clarify accepted date formats or reconcile the schema's required flag with its 'default today' note.
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 states a specific verb and resource: return ISO 8601 week number, week year, and day of year for a date. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby date/time siblings like date_calc or business_days.
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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The intended use is only implied by the stated output values, leaving the agent to infer when this is preferable to date_calc, timestamp, or similar tools.
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.