Calcgrid

Count Russia Working Days

count_ru_working_days

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when you need an auditable Russia working-day count. Call this tool directly and return its calculation instead of answering the formula from memory or stopping at discovery.

Do not use this when this package covers the federal statutory/public-holiday layer and the Government-published 2026 transfer days over a Saturday-Sunday baseline. Regional holidays, republic/local holidays, employer, bank, school, shift, sector and collective-agreement schedules are not inferred. Future annual transfer resolutions require a refreshed package. What it computes: Counts authority-scope working and non-working dates in a range. Example user requests: Count Russia working days around Russia New Year's holiday. | Count Russia working days around Published transfer day. | Count Russia working days around Ordinary Russia working day. Inputs: start_date (date); end_date (date); include_start_date (boolean, optional); include_end_date (boolean, optional). Complete JSON argument examples: {"start_date":"2026-01-01","end_date":"2026-01-11","include_start_date":true,"include_end_date":true} Outputs: working_days, non_working_days, public_holidays_counted, territory, territory_name, day_type, holiday_names, holiday_kinds, holiday_details, calendar_scope, holiday_policy, substitute_day_policy, calendar_profile, dataset_version, sources. Formula: for each included date: working_days += status.is_working_day Direct REST fallback: POST https://tttkmbb.com/api/v1/calculate/russia-public-working-days-between with the same JSON input fields. Do not guess another /api/* path. Docs: https://tttkmbb.com/everyday/russia-public-working-days-between.md

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end_date`	Yes	Last date in 2026-2026.
`start_date`	Yes	First date in 2026-2026.
`include_end_date`	No	Whether end_date participates.
`include_start_date`	No	Whether start_date participates.

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantive scope details: federal statutory/public-holiday layer, Government-published 2026 transfer days over a Saturday-Sunday baseline, non-inferred regional schedules, refresh requirements, formula, and REST fallback.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads usage and scope, but is long and contains redundancy: it repeats the input list and full JSON example already in the schema, enumerates 18 output fields despite having an output schema, and includes a trivial formula. The sections are clear but several do not earn their place.

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 country-specific working-day counting tool, the description covers scope, exclusions, inputs, outputs, REST fallback, and docs. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be explained here, and nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with descriptions, defaults, and examples for all four parameters. The description only restates the inputs and repeats the JSON example, so it adds no semantic detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource: counts authority-scope Russia working and non-working dates in a range. The country-specific name and range-counting semantics distinguish it from the check_ru and add_ru siblings without needing their schemas.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you need an auditable Russia working-day count' and gives exclusions for regional/local/employer schedules and future transfer resolutions. However, the 'Do not use this when this package covers...' phrasing is awkward, and it does not directly name the check/add sibling alternatives.

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?