Skip to main content
Glama

count_working_days

PAID ($0.02). Working days in a date range for a country: weekends (Egypt's Fri–Sat handled) and statutory public holidays applied, with the holidays hit by name and the next working day after the range. Range max 366 days. Pass api_key if you have one; otherwise the response explains how to pay via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRange end, YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive
fromYesRange start, YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive
api_keyNoAPI key
countryYesISO country code
subdivisionNoOptional ISO 3166-2 region code (e.g. 'DE-BY') to apply that region's statutory holidays on top of the national calendar. Regions are listed under `subdivisions` by get_public_holidays. Unknown code is refused free with the list.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is paid, applies weekends and holidays, and returns holiday names and next working day. It does not detail error behavior or idempotency, but covers the main behavioral traits adequately.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that cover cost, functionality, and constraints. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no wasted words.

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?

The description explains the core functionality and output summary (holidays hit by name and next working day). However, without an output schema, it lacks details on the exact return format. It is mostly complete for a calculation tool with good schema coverage.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds context about country-specific weekends and holiday application but does not provide parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it counts working days for a given country within a date range, applying weekends and statutory public holidays. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_public_holidays' by focusing on working day computation and returning the next working day.

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 provides usage context such as cost ($0.02) and api_key/payment flow, and specifies a range max of 366 days. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_public_holidays) or when not to use it.

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.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation (check, compute, count, get, list) and a distinct resource (minimum wage, income tax, VAT, working days, holidays, series, settlement). The series tools are clearly differentiated by granularity (list, current, history, snapshot), and compute/check tools apply calculations rather than just returning values.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_, compute_, count_, get_, list_), but settlement_date is a noun phrase without a verb, and the verbs vary (check, compute, count, get, list) rather than using a single style. Still, the names are descriptive and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range, and each tool earns its place by covering a distinct facet of statutory reference data: taxes, compliance checks, calendars, series, and settlement. There is no bloat or sense of missing essential tools.

Completeness4/5

The surface provides strong coverage: compliance checks (minimum wage, taxes), calendar operations (holidays, working days), series catalog/current/history/snapshot, and settlement dates. Minor gaps include no direct tool for settlement conventions (mentioned only as an external endpoint) and no standalone tax bracket getter, but get_series likely covers some rates and users can infer brackets from compute_income_tax.

Resources