tilwhen date engine

Explain a calculation step by step

explain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs any operation and returns the receipt plus human-readable derivation steps. Accepts the same fields as the other tools, discriminated by op.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`op`	Yes
`to`	No	ISO date YYYY-MM-DD, or "today" (resolved in tz)
`tz`	No	IANA timezone that defines "today" (e.g. Africa/Kampala). Default UTC.	UTC
`net`	No
`date`	No	ISO date YYYY-MM-DD, or "today" (resolved in tz)
`days`	No
`from`	No	ISO date YYYY-MM-DD, or "today" (resolved in tz)
`roll`	No
`year`	No
`event`	No
`weekday`	No
`workweek`	No	Working week. Default mon-fri (Sat+Sun weekend).
`invoiceDate`	No	ISO date YYYY-MM-DD, or "today" (resolved in tz)
`jurisdiction`	No	Holiday jurisdiction id: US, GB, GB-SCT, GB-NIR, IE, FR, CA, AU, UG (alias UK for GB). No default: omit for no holiday calendar.
`customHolidays`	No	Custom organizational holiday calendar as ISO dates (mutually exclusive with jurisdiction)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`steps`	Yes	Human-readable derivation, identical to the REST /api/v1/explain output
`receipt`	Yes	Auditable receipt for the operation

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds 'returns receipt plus steps' but no further behavioral details beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant content. Front-loaded with the core action and key differentiator.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks detail about what 'receipt' or 'derivation steps' entail, and does not cover the complexity of 15 parameters sufficiently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 53%, but the description defers to 'same fields as other tools' without explaining any parameter specifics or adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool runs any operation and returns a receipt plus derivation steps, distinguishing it from siblings that return only results.

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?

It explains the tool accepts the same fields as other tools discriminated by 'op', implying usage when explanation is needed. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context is clear.

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

All tilwhen date engine tools Inspect

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.

Each tool targets a distinct date operation: calendar addition/subtraction, business days, days between, holidays, invoice due, next occurrence, natural language parsing, and an explainer. No two tools overlap in purpose; descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern: lowercase with underscores, predominantly verb_noun (add_days, parse_date_query) or noun_phrase (business_days, invoice_due). The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool addresses a core date calculation need without redundancy or bloat. The count is appropriate for a focused date engine.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all essential date operations: calendar arithmetic, business days, holidays, payment terms, next occurrences, and natural language queries. No obvious gaps remain for common date calculations.

Resources

Need Help?