holidays_get_holidaysThe public holidays of one calendar for one year, with observed dates.
A year the source does not cover returns no holidays rather than a guess.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| as_of | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| calendar | Yes | Required named calendar ID, for example GB-EAW-BANK | |
| 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 covers safety, and the description adds behavior beyond that: it returns observed dates and returns no holidays rather than guessing for unsupported years. It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but the read-only annotation sufficiently covers the main concern.
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?
Two compact sentences with the main concept first and the important edge-case note second. No filler or redundant wording.
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?
With no output schema, the agent relies on the description to understand what will be returned; it states holidays with observed dates but omits the output shape and the role of time-travel/pagination parameters. Adequate for basic selection, but not fully complete for confident invocation.
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 17%—only calendar has a description. The description clarifies calendar/year conceptually, but leaves required year and optional as_of, snapshot_id, limit, and fields without meaningful semantic explanation. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate more.
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 identifies the resource: public holidays for one calendar in one year, with observed dates. It is distinguishable from the sibling count/list tools by its 'get holidays' semantics, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
It gives clear selection context—one calendar, one year—and a useful edge-case behavior (unsupported years return no holidays). However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over holidays_count_business_days or holidays_list_calendars.
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.