Exact Dutch public holidays for a year, including movable feasts (Easter, Ascension, Whitsun) and King's Day rules. Use this instead of computing Dutch holidays yourself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys exactness and coverage of movable feasts, but it does not disclose the output format, return structure, substitute-day handling, or potential edge cases.
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?
Two tightly packed sentences with the main behavior front-loaded and the usage pointer in a short second sentence. There is no redundant or vague wording.
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?
The tool is simple, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain the returned holiday format, whether dates are returned as ISO strings, or how subtle rules like King's Day shifts are represented, leaving an agent with meaningful uncertainty about the result.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the year parameter's meaning. It only says 'for a year,' which adds little beyond the parameter name and the schema's integer/range constraints; no extra detail about calendar type, accepted years, or formatting is given.
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 clearly identifies the tool as returning exact Dutch public holidays for a year and explicitly mentions movable feasts and King's Day rules. It distinguishes the tool from computing holidays manually, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling working_days_between.
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 gives a clear usage instruction: use this tool instead of computing Dutch holidays yourself. It implies the tool is preferred for accurate, calendar-correct Dutch holiday data, but it does not name alternatives or exclusion cases such as working-day calculations.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some pairs could be confused: html_to_pdf vs url_to_pdf both produce PDFs, read_page vs url_screenshot both fetch a URL, and generate_test_bsn vs generate_brp_test_data both generate Dutch test data. Detailed descriptions mitigate most ambiguity, so agents can usually select correctly.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with predictable verb_noun patterns (e.g., generate_*, validate_*, memory_*, url_*). The naming is uniform and makes each tool's function easily inferable from its name.
35 tools is a heavy surface for any MCP server, even a general-purpose toolbox. The large number of niche Dutch-specific tools (BRP, UPA, BSN, holidays) may overwhelm agents and increase selection complexity. The server could benefit from splitting into smaller, focused servers.
The server covers a wide range of utilities, but there are notable gaps: no hash generation, no json_to_csv counterpart, and the workflow sub-domain only offers list/run without create/delete. Core utilities are present, but some obvious counterparts and lifecycle operations are missing.