Geo-Parity

Shared working days and public holidays by country

compare_public_holidays

Read-onlyIdempotent

Two questions in one. Given countries (two or more), returns the working days those places genuinely SHARE in a year — weekdays on which nobody is on a public holiday — which is the number a distributed team actually plans against and the half of the question timezone-overlap tools never answer: a London/Tokyo team loses roughly three working weeks a year to non-overlapping holidays. Without countries, ranks countries by nationwide public holidays. Weekend holidays are excluded (they cost nobody a working day) and regional holidays are counted separately from national ones. Covers 204 countries, but NOT India, Thailand, Malaysia, the UAE or Saudi Arabia — those return NO_DATA rather than an empty calendar, because “no data” and “no holidays” are opposite claims.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Ranking direction. Ignored when `countries` is given.	most
`year`	No	Calendar year. Defaults to the first year in the dataset.
`limit`	No	Return at most this many countries in a ranking.
`countries`	No	Comma-separated ISO alpha-2 codes, two or more (e.g. "GB,JP"). Omit to get a ranking instead of an overlap.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`rows`	No
`year`	No
`lostDays`	No
`weekdays`	No
`countries`	No
`lostDates`	No
`sharedWorkingDays`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "countries": "GB,JP"
+  }
+]
```
First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description still adds substantial behavior: 204-country coverage with named exclusions, NO_DATA distinct from an empty calendar, weekend holidays excluded, and regional counted separately from national. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with 'Two questions in one' and organized by mode, but padded with persuasive framing ('the number a distributed team actually plans against', the London/Tokyo anecdote) that adds flavor more than invocation guidance. Still readable and mostly earning its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the remaining gaps: both modes, coverage limits, edge-case semantics (NO_DATA vs empty), and holiday-counting rules. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by requiring 'two or more' codes for the overlap mode and by explaining the NO_DATA outcome for unsupported country codes — a parameter-value behavior the schema does not state.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific dual-mode verb+resource: shared working days across given countries, or a ranked table of public holidays when countries is omitted. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling tools like compare_working_time or find_meeting_slot because the description frames it as the holiday-overlap half that timezone tools miss.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear when-to-use conditions for both modes (with countries = overlap; without = ranking) and contrasts the tool against timezone-overlap tools. It does not name a specific sibling tool to use instead, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Geo-Parity tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?