WritersLogic verifiable AI agents

time-bucket-check

DST hazards for hourly and daily buckets in a zone: skipped hours, repeated hours, 23- and 25-hour days — For a time zone and a date range of up to 1100 days, lists every offset transition and what it does to local bucketing: the hourly labels that never occur (spring-forward), the hourly labels that occur twice and would merge two real hours when grouped by local time (fall-back), and the 23-, 24.5- or 25-hour days; optionally checks up to 500 caller hourly labels (YYYY-MM-DDTHH:00) for non-existent

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "timeZone": "<timeZone>",
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "time-bucket-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Last local date, inclusive.
`from`	Yes	First local date, inclusive.
`labels`	No	Local hour labels to check, e.g. 2026-03-08T02:00.
`timeZone`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it names the concrete limits (1100 days, 500 labels), enumerates the transition categories reported, and explains the practical consequence of fall-back merging two real hours under local-time grouping. It does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating or describe result shape, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The key hazard summary is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a single dense run-on clause chain separated by dashes and semicolons. The text is also cut off mid-sentence ('for non-existent '), leaving a dangling and incomplete thought that costs clarity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the transition kinds and the day-length variants reported. It falls short only in not describing the result structure (per-transition records versus per-day summary) and in the truncated label-check clause.

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 75%, and the description adds genuine meaning on top: the date range is bounded at 1100 days, and 'labels' is explained as caller hourly labels checked for non-existence, with the YYYY-MM-DDTHH:00 format shown. The sentence describing labels is truncated mid-clause, so the semantic explanation of that parameter is incomplete.

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 concrete resource and scope: it lists offset transitions for a zone over a date range and reports skipped hours, repeated hours, and 23/24.5/25-hour days, plus optional validation of caller labels. An agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'dst-check', which is the most likely confusion point.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing ('DST hazards for hourly and daily buckets in a zone'), and the 1100-day and 500-label caps sketch the intended scope. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance on choosing this over the closely named 'dst-check' sibling.

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

All WritersLogic verifiable AI agents 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?