holidays_count_business_daysWeekdays between start and end inclusive that are not holidays in the calendar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| as_of | No | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| calendar | Yes | Required named calendar ID | |
| snapshot_id | 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the tool has no side effects, and the description does not contradict this. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details beyond the annotation, such as edge cases (e.g., start > end) or error conditions. It satisfies the baseline for non-contradiction but does not enrich transparency.
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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core functionality without unnecessary words or complexity. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.
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?
The description captures the essential operation of counting inclusive business days in a calendar. It omits details about output format (e.g., whether it returns a number or object) and edge cases, but for a straightforward counting operation, the core context is sufficient. The low parameter coverage is the main gap, but the description's simplicity mitigates this.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'calendar' has a description), and the tool description does not compensate by explaining 'start' or 'end' beyond implying they are dates. Parameters like 'as_of' and 'snapshot_id' remain entirely unexplained. The description fails to add meaningful parameter context to the sparse schema.
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 clearly states the tool counts weekdays between start and end dates that are not holidays, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like holidays_get_holidays by focusing on the count of business days rather than listing holidays.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is appropriate or reference sibling tools such as holidays_get_holidays. The purpose implies usage for counting business days, but lacks direct usage instructions.
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.
Every tool has a unique purpose, and the descriptions are detailed enough to clearly distinguish between search, list, get, and specific operations across domains. No two tools overlap in function.
Domain tools follow a consistent '<domain>_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, but gateway-level tools like 'call_tool', 'find_capability', 'inspect_tool', 'search_services', and 'status' lack the prefix, introducing a minor inconsistency. Overall still readable and predictable.
With 35 tools, the count exceeds the typical 3–15 range, but this is a gateway aggregating multiple distinct domains (holidays, laws, opendata, recalls, etc.), making the larger set justified. The count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.
Each domain offers a full set of operations: search, list, get, and domain-specific actions (like count_business_days or get_document_changes). Gateway meta-tools cover discovery, inspection, and invocation, leaving no obvious gaps.