Almanack

render_calendar_page

Draw one month of a calendar as an SVG grid, or a whole year on one sheet, and return the SVG itself. Columns come from the calendar's own week, so a ten-day week gets ten columns. Intercalary days belong to no month and never take a cell in the grid: the blocks either side of this month are drawn as a strip outside it, dashed when the week does not count them. Moons get a glyph per day, lit to that moon's phase, when the calendar defines any. Events use the same shape as render_timeline and are filtered to the days on this page, with at most 500 given and at most three shown per day before the rest become a count. Colours are assigned per color_key from the whole list before filtering, so a category keeps its colour across months. OMIT 'month' TO DRAW THE WHOLE YEAR on one sheet, every month side by side — for seeing at once whether festivals are evenly spread, which nine separate month pages do not show. A year sheet has no room for labels or moon glyphs, so each day carries its number and a dot per event, every dot holding its label in a . Fully deterministic: the same arguments always produce byte-identical SVG. The output is static SVG and never contains script or style.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`year`	Yes
`month`	No
`theme`	No	default
`events`	No
`calendar`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly: SVG output, variable column counts from the calendar's week, intercalary-day strip treatment, dashed strips, moon phase glyphs, event filtering, 500-event and 3-per-day limits, and color assignment before filtering are all detailed. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 dense but mostly earns its length: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral constraints and then the whole-year mode. Some repetition exists around the year-sheet option, and the single unbroken block makes it harder to scan, but every major behavioral rule has a place.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, and it already covers many edge cases (intercalary days, week lengths, moons, event limits, color stability). The main gap is the undocumented 'theme' parameter and possibly the once unknown fifth parameter, which prevents a 5 for full contextual completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds strong meaning for 'month' (omit to draw year), 'events' (filtering, limits, color behavior), and 'calendar' (week structure, intercalary days, moons). However, 'theme' is never mentioned or tied to the described color behavior, and there is a fifth parameter not covered by any described semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Draw one month of a calendar as an SVG grid, or a whole year on one sheet, and return the SVG itself.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like render_timeline and calendar_periods, and the month-or-year modal behavior is unique and explicit.

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 gives clear usage context: it explains when to choose the whole-year mode ('for seeing at once whether festivals are evenly spread') and contrasts it with 'nine separate month pages do not show.' It also references render_timeline for event shape, though it does not fully spell out when to prefer one sibling over another.

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

All Almanack 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct calendar operation, and the descriptions carefully draw boundaries between related concepts. There is modest overlap: convert_date also reports a named period, and calendar_events can answer nth-weekday questions that overlap with nth_weekday_of_month, so an agent might occasionally pick the wrong entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable and consistently snake_case, but the set mixes verb-led names like convert_date and render_timeline with noun-led names like calendar_events and moon_phases, plus one prepositional verb in add_to_date. This is a readable mixture rather than a uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Fifteen tools sits at the upper end of the typical well-scoped range, but every tool fills a distinct role for an almanac-style server: date math, conversion, calendar queries, formatting, parsing, rendering, lunar and solar calculations, generation, and validation. The batched plural parameters also make the count feel intentional rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the domain unusually well: conversion, arithmetic, events, periods, weekdays, format/parse, SVG rendering, moon phases, daylight, scattering, and validation all have dedicated tools. The main gap is introspection—there is no direct way to list a calendar spec's months, eras, week structure, periods, or formats beyond what other tools reveal through errors and outputs.

Resources

Need Help?