calc.engineer

date difference

date_difference

Calculate the difference between two dates in days, weeks, months, years, and business days. Accepts dates in YYYY-MM-DD format. Returns the absolute difference (order doesn't matter) plus a flag indicating whether the end date is in the future relative to start. Business days count only Monday through Friday. Useful for project planning, deadline tracking, contract duration calculations, and age computations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end_date`	Yes	End date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g., '2024-12-31').
`start_date`	Yes	Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g., '2024-01-15').

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	Yes	Total number of days between the two dates (absolute value).
`weeks`	Yes	Number of complete weeks.
`years`	Yes	Approximate number of years (days / 365.25).
`months`	Yes	Approximate number of months (days / 30.44).
`is_future`	Yes	True if end_date is after start_date.
`business_days`	Yes	Number of weekdays (Monday-Friday) between the dates.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: absolute difference regardless of order, a future flag, and business days defined as Monday–Friday. This provides good transparency for a calculation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes all necessary context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 required parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description fully covers input format, output characteristics, and business day definition. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds value by explaining output behavior (absolute difference, future flag, business days) but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 begins with a specific verb-resource combination ('Calculate the difference between two dates') and lists multiple units (days, weeks, months, years, business days). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are almost all engineering/physics calculators.

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 explicitly provides use cases (project planning, deadline tracking, etc.) and notes that the order of dates doesn't matter. While no alternatives are mentioned, the tool's purpose is sufficiently scoped to avoid confusion among non-date siblings.

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

All calc.engineer 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

Despite 89 tools, each has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that often reference related tools. Overlap exists (e.g., multiple LoRa/RF tools), but the descriptions are sufficient to distinguish them. Some confusion possible among similar-sounding tools like attenuator_pi and attenuator_tee, but the descriptions explicitly compare them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Consistent underscore-separated lowercase naming. Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., capacitor_charge, wire_gauge) or noun_noun (power_cost). Minor inconsistencies such as 'bmi_calculator' vs 'solar_sizing' but overall predictable.

Tool Count2/5

89 tools is far too many for a single MCP server. This scope is more appropriate for multiple specialized servers. The sheer number will slow agent selection and increase cognitive load, reducing coherence.

Completeness3/5

Covers many domains (RF, solar, PCB, networking, math, etc.) but lacks depth in some areas (e.g., no three-phase power, no airflow calculations). Some domains have comprehensive coverage (LoRa/Meshtastic), but others feel incomplete for the tool count.

Resources

Need Help?