Skip to main content
Glama

Moltline TimeOps

by com.moltlinestudio

Business Days

business_days
Read-onlyIdempotent

Do business-day math that skips weekends and your holiday list. FREE.

Either add N business days to start_date (set add_days), or count the business days between start_date and end_date (set end_date). Typical input {"start_date": "2026-03-02", "add_days": 10} returns {"result_date": "2026-03-16", "result_weekday": "Monday", ...}; with end_date set it returns {"business_days_between": N, "from": ..., "to": ...}.

Use when the span must exclude weekends and named holidays. Not for plain calendar-day differences, which are a direct subtraction, and not for scheduling backward from a fixed deadline (deadline_planner). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "dates must be YYYY-MM-DD"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
add_daysNoBusiness days to add; negative subtracts. Range -5000 to 5000. Ignored when end_date is provided.
end_dateNoOptional end date, ISO YYYY-MM-DD. When set, the tool counts business days between start_date and end_date instead of adding.
holidaysNoOptional list of ISO YYYY-MM-DD dates to treat as non-working days, e.g. ["2026-12-25"].
start_dateYesAnchor date in ISO format YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. "2026-03-02".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses crucial behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it declares that errors return a structured JSON with a fix message rather than a protocol error, and states that the tool is read-only and idempotent (consistent with annotations). It also explains the two mode-switching logic via parameters. This adds significant value 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, includes example inputs/outputs, usage guidance, error behavior, and safety note—all in a compact, well-structured form. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (dual modes, holiday list, error handling, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, mode selection, error handling, idempotency, and read-only guarantee. The output schema exists, so detailed return values are not required in the description.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the dual-mode behavior and showing example inputs/outputs, but the parameter details (format, defaults, mutual exclusivity) are already well covered in the schema. The description does not add critical meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Do business-day math') and immediately distinguishes the tool's dual modes (adding days vs. counting between dates). It clearly states what the tool does and how it differs from simple calendar operations.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells when to use ('when the span must exclude weekends and named holidays') and when not to ('not for plain calendar-day differences' and 'not for scheduling backward from a fixed deadline'), and names the alternative tool 'deadline_planner'. This is exemplary guidance.

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

All Moltline TimeOps toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a clearly distinct temporal operation: business-day arithmetic, backward project scheduling, time-zone meeting overlap, recurrence expansion, and SLA due computation. The descriptions explicitly state what each tool is not for, making confusion unlikely.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use underscores, but the structure varies: business_days (noun_noun), deadline_planner (noun_verb), meeting_overlap (noun_noun), recurrence_expand (noun_verb), sla_due (abbreviation+adjective). No consistent verb_noun or action_resource pattern, making prediction harder.

Tool Count5/5

With five tools, the set covers core time-ops needs—business days, deadlines, meetings, recurrences, and SLAs—without bloat. Each tool earns its place, and the count is ideal for focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The surface is well-scoped for the stated domain, covering business-day logic, planning, meeting scheduling, recurrence, and SLA timing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no timezone conversion or general date difference) but are arguably out of scope or trivially handled externally.

Resources