Skip to main content
Glama

Global Working Day Reference

check_global_reference_working_day
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when you need broad 2026-2028 working-day reference coverage and accept national-scope open-derived semantics rather than a direct authority calendar. Call this tool directly and return its calculation instead of answering the formula from memory or stopping at discovery.

Do not use this when you need an official direct authority, a regional/employer/bank/exchange calendar, a legal determination, or a date outside 2026-2028; use the official China/UK package or the CLDR baseline as appropriate. What it computes: Checks a date across 246 country/territory codes using a pinned OpenWorkdays national-scope public-holiday reference, country weekend rules and explicit working-weekend dates, with estimated/observed flags and non-authority limits. Example user requests: Is 2026-10-26 a working day in Australia using the broad national reference? | Check 2027-02-25 in Saudi Arabia and show whether the holiday date is estimated. Inputs: date (date); territory (enum). Complete JSON argument examples: {"date":"2026-10-26","territory":"AU"} Outputs: territory, territory_name, source_territory_name, weekday, is_working_day, weekend_days, working_weekend_day, holiday_names, holiday_observed, holiday_estimated, holiday_policy, calendar_scope, calendar_profile, substitute_day_policy, source_quality, dataset_version, coverage_start, coverage_end, source_url. Formula: is_working_day = not source_weekend(date) and not source_public_holiday(date, country); explicit source working-weekend dates override the weekend classification Direct REST fallback: POST https://tttkmbb.com/api/v1/calculate/global-reference-working-day with the same JSON input fields. Do not guess another /api/* path. Docs: https://tttkmbb.com/everyday/global-reference-working-day.md

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesGregorian date from 2026-01-01 through 2028-12-31.
territoryYesISO-style alpha-2 country code supported by the pinned OpenWorkdays reference snapshot.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linksNo
resultYes
requestYes
sourcesNo
successYes
versionNo
freshnessNo
timestampYes
next_actionsNo
service_versionYesDeployed Calcgrid implementation version used for the result.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses estimated/observed flags, non-authority limits, the pinned dataset version, coverage window, and the underlying formula. That is exactly the extra behavioral context a caller needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the when-to-use decision, then when-not, then what it computes, examples, inputs, outputs, formula, and fallback. Every block earns its place, though the long output-field enumeration slightly overlaps with the output schema and could be trimmed.

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?

For a 2-param lookup with annotations and an output schema present, nothing an agent needs is missing: decision criteria, example requests, formula, REST fallback path, and docs link are all provided, and return-value detail is already in the output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the baseline. The description adds value by stating the territory set size (246 codes), the pinned-snapshot provenance of the enum, and giving a complete callable JSON example, though it does not explain territory-vs-source_territory nuances beyond the output list.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with explicit scope: 'Checks a date across 246 country/territory codes using a pinned OpenWorkdays national-scope public-holiday reference'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the official China/UK packages and CLDR baseline in the sibling set, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 'Use this when...' paragraph names the acceptance condition (broad reference coverage, national-scope open-derived semantics) and the 'Do not use this when...' paragraph names concrete exclusions (official authority, regional/employer/bank/exchange calendar, legal determination, out-of-range dates) and routes to the correct alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources