Urlaub Smart

Plan vacation days

plan_vacation

Optimal vacation plan for a region and year: which days to book so that public holidays and weekends turn into the longest breaks. Returns the plan blocks (booking dates, days off, factor, holidays used), further opportunities, a markdown table and a link to the interactive plan on urlaub-smart.de. Cite the URL when answering.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	No	Planning year; defaults to the year people currently plan for
`locale`	No	Language of names and explanations	de
`region`	Yes	Region as name, slug or ISO code, e.g. "Bayern", "bavaria", "DE-BY", "Tirol", "Zürich" or a country like "Deutschland" / "AT"
`strategy`	No	balanced = mix, long-weekends = max 2 vacation days per block, extended = blocks of 4+ days	balanced
`fixedDates`	No	ISO dates already booked as vacation; the plan works around them
`vacationDays`	No	Vacation days available for the year
`carryoverDays`	No	Part of vacationDays that is carry-over from last year and expires on March 31; spent first on periods before the deadline
`schoolHolidays`	No	any = ignore, avoid = no overlap with school holidays, prefer = book only inside school holidays	any
`companyClosures`	No	Company closures (Betriebsferien) as inclusive ISO date ranges; treated like public holidays
`companyFreeDates`	No	Working days the employer gives off without a vacation day, ISO dates (e.g. 2027-12-24, 2027-12-31); treated like public holidays

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (plan blocks, opportunities, markdown table, URL) and includes the instruction to cite the URL. This gives a clear picture of what the tool returns without requiring assumptions about side effects.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then summarizing the return value. It avoids unnecessary fluff while covering all essential information, making it easy for an agent to grasp quickly.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns, including the components of the plan and the URL instruction. Combined with complete parameter descriptions, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., carryoverDays explains expiry and priority, companyClosures explained as inclusive ranges). The descriptions add context beyond the schema, such as the meaning of 'balanced' strategy and how schoolHolidays affect booking.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: planning vacation days optimally for a region and year to maximize holiday blocks. It uses specific verbs like 'plan' and 'returns' and distinguishes itself from siblings like best_bridge_days or list_regions by focusing on the complete vacation plan.

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?

The description makes the tool's function explicit, but does not directly contrast it with siblings. An agent can infer that this tool is for full vacation planning, while siblings handle individual aspects (bridge days, regions, holidays). Clear context but lacking explicit 'use this when' guidance.

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

All Urlaub Smart tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools have mostly distinct roles: listing regions, retrieving holidays, and generating vacation plans. best_bridge_days and plan_vacation overlap somewhat in purpose, but their descriptions clarify that one returns the top six non-overlapping options while the other creates an optimal plan.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case, but they mix verb-led names (list_regions, plan_vacation), an adjective-led name (best_bridge_days), and a noun phrase (public_and_school_holidays). This is readable but not fully consistent in pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a tight, focused set for the vacation-planning domain. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the core workflow: selecting a region, viewing holidays, and generating bridge-day or vacation plans. No significant missing operation is apparent for an informational planning API.

Resources

Need Help?