us_federal_holidaysFREE. US federal holidays (observed dates) for a year, per 5 U.S.C. 6103. Useful to test the connection before paying.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "us_federal_holidays"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 non-annotation context that matters: the call is free, it returns observed dates rather than nominal dates, and the statutory basis constrains the results. It says nothing about the return shape or what happens when no year is supplied.
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?
Three short sentences with the most decision-relevant token ("FREE") front-loaded, followed by scope and then the recommended use. No filler, though the pricing emphasis occupies space that could have documented the year default.
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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (observed holiday dates for a year) and the source of truth (5 U.S.C. 6103). The only meaningful gap is default-year behavior for an optional parameter.
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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden, and it only says "for a year." It does not state the accepted range (1990-2100, visible only in the schema), what year is used when the optional parameter is omitted, or how the year is interpreted. An agent calling without a year has no documented expectation of the result.
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?
States the specific resource and scope: US federal holidays, observed dates, for a single year, per 5 U.S.C. 6103. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from a generic date utility, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling us_business_days, which is the tool most likely to be confused with it.
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?
"Useful to test the connection before paying" gives one implied usage scenario (a free smoke test ahead of a paid call), which is real guidance. It does not say when to prefer us_business_days instead, nor whether this tool is appropriate for production holiday lookups rather than only connectivity checks.
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.