tilwhen date engine

Invoice due date from net terms

invoice_due

Read-onlyIdempotent

Due date for Net-N payment terms (calendar days, invoice date = day 0). Optional roll-forward past weekends and, with a jurisdiction or custom calendar, public holidays.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tz`	No	IANA timezone that defines "today" (e.g. Africa/Kampala). Default UTC.	UTC
`net`	Yes
`roll`	No
`workweek`	No	Working week. Default mon-fri (Sat+Sun weekend).
`invoiceDate`	No	ISO date YYYY-MM-DD, or "today" (resolved in tz)	today
`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
`answer`	Yes	The calculated answer (kind-discriminated)
`receipt`	Yes	Auditable receipt: inputs, timezone, convention, workweek, holiday calendar, exclusions, versions, stable result ID

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and read-only behavior. The description adds value by explaining calendar day counting, day-0 basis, and optional roll-forward past weekends/holidays, complementing the annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding optional features. It is concise without unnecessary detail, though slightly more structure could improve readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With many parameters and constraints like mutual exclusivity of jurisdiction and customHolidays, the description covers the main use case but lacks detail on parameter interactions and edge cases. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 71% with descriptions for most parameters. The description clarifies 'net' as number of calendar days and 'roll' as roll-forward, but does not fully detail all parameter interactions (e.g., workweek defaults). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 calculates due dates for Net-N payment terms, specifying that invoice date is day 0 and offering optional roll-forward. This distinct purpose separates it from siblings like add_days 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for net terms with holiday adjustments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_days or business_days. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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?