Add N business days to a start date (mode: add). Use forgekit_business_days_count to count between dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | Yes | Business days to add (positive integer) | |
| start | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| country | No | US | |
| extraHolidays | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'mode: add' qualifier, which is slightly ambiguous and does not substantially expand behavioral detail beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded, and each sentence has a clear purpose. The parenthetical '(mode: add)' is slightly redundant and could confuse agents since there is no mode parameter in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only date calculation, the description is mostly sufficient and appropriately routes to the count sibling. However, it omits important context about the optional country and extraHolidays parameters, and there is no output schema to clarify the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents start and n, but country and extraHolidays have no descriptions. The description does not compensate for this gap—it only restates the meaning of n and start without explaining holiday handling or country selection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Add N business days to a start date (mode: add).' It clearly distinguishes itself from the relevant sibling by pointing to forgekit_business_days_count for the counting use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly directs agents to use forgekit_business_days_count when the task is to count between dates, which clarifies the boundary between the two tools. It could be even more explicit about when to choose this tool, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
ship_verify and ship_verify_v2 are near-synonyms, and ship_bundle wraps ship_pack plus an audit while evidence_pack combines screenshot/PDF/HTML. The descriptions help, but an agent could easily pick the wrong granularity or version.
All tools use the forgekit_ prefix and snake_case, but verb placement is inconsistent: business_days_add/count place the noun first, evidence_pack has no verb, and the ship_* group mixes noun and verb senses. The set is readable but not uniformly patterned.
Fifteen tools is near the upper end of a reasonable utility-kit size, and most tools are individually useful. It feels slightly over-scoped because ship_verify_v2 and ship_bundle partially duplicate other capabilities rather than adding clearly new operations.
The web/media surface is broadly covered with screenshots, PDFs, QR encode/decode, OG previews, evidence packs, and agent-readiness audits. However, the set is an eclectic collection rather than one coherent workflow, and there are gaps such as no MCP-level polling for async jobs and no history/retrieval for evidence packs or ship bundles.