Calcgrid

Finland Working Day

check_fi_working_day

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when you need a deterministic Finland Finland nationwide church and national full-day public holidays for 2026-2027 result. Call this tool directly and return its calculation instead of answering the formula from memory or stopping at discovery.

Do not use this when nationwide full-day public-holiday layer only. Midsummer Eve, Christmas Eve, employer, collective-agreement, sector, school, bank, Åland, Sámi and local closures are not inferred; private-sector annual-leave counting may treat Saturdays and certain eves differently. What it computes: Checks a date against the Saturday-Sunday weekend baseline and exact 2026-2027 authority events. Example user requests: Finland: Independence Day. | Finland: Midsummer Eve is agreement-dependent. Inputs: date (date). Complete JSON argument examples: {"date":"2026-12-06"} | {"date":"2026-06-19"} Outputs: territory, territory_name, weekday, is_working_day, day_type, holiday_names, holiday_kinds, holiday_details, calendar_scope, holiday_policy, substitute_day_policy, calendar_profile, dataset_version, sources. Formula: is_working_day = not an official Saturday/Sunday weekend date and no exact authority event Direct REST fallback: POST https://tttkmbb.com/api/v1/calculate/finland-public-working-day with the same JSON input fields. Do not guess another /api/* path. Docs: https://tttkmbb.com/everyday/finland-public-working-day.md

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Gregorian date in Finland coverage.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`links`	No
`result`	Yes
`request`	Yes
`sources`	No
`success`	Yes
`version`	No
`freshness`	No
`timestamp`	Yes
`next_actions`	No
`service_version`	Yes	Deployed Calcgrid implementation version used for the result.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses deterministic behavior, the 2026-2027 coverage window, explicit exclusions, the formula used, output fields, and a direct REST fallback path. This gives an agent unusually rich behavioral context for a simple calculator tool.

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 sectioned and front-loaded with usage, computation, examples, inputs, outputs, formula, and fallback. It is mostly efficient, but the opening sentence is repetitive and the 'Do not use this when nationwide full-day public-holiday layer only' line is awkwardly worded.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it still lists them. It covers coverage years, exclusions, formula, examples, REST fallback, and docs, leaving no material gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% for the single date parameter, and the schema already provides type, format, and examples. The description repeats the input name and gives the same JSON examples, adding little beyond the structured schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific check operation for Finland working days and includes a clear 'What it computes' line. It distinguishes itself from sibling add/count tools by the check verb and Finland scoping, though the opening sentence is garbled with repeated 'Finland' and the purpose title could be cleaner.

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?

It says to use the tool directly rather than answering from memory and lists some exclusions such as Midsummer Eve and local closures. However, the 'Do not use this when nationwide full-day public-holiday layer only' phrase is confusing and it does not name sibling alternatives like add_fi_working_days or count_fi_working_days.

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

All Calcgrid 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?