holidays_list_calendarsEvery calendar this service names, with its authority and whether data is available.
Use calendar_id from here as calendar in get_holidays and count_business_days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| fields | 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 signals that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds that it returns calendar identifiers and availability metadata. No side effects are implied, and no additional behavioral warnings are needed.
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 brief, focused, and front-loads the core purpose before giving the downstream usage hint. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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 listing tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context about the returned entity and how it feeds into sibling tools. It could mention output fields more fully, but the schema's field enum fills most of that gap.
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 description provides no explanation of the limit or fields parameters, and the schema itself only gives type/enum constraints. Although the field enum names are mostly self-explanatory, the lack of any narrative guidance on filtering or pagination leaves parameter semantics under-specified.
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?
Description clearly identifies the tool's purpose as listing all calendars exposed by the service, including authority and availability metadata. It stops short of using an explicit verb like 'list', but the meaning is unambiguous.
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?
Description explicitly tells the agent to use the returned calendar_id as the calendar parameter in holidays_get_holidays and holidays_count_business_days, making the intended workflow clear. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.
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.