Holidays MCP
Server Details
Free, keyless public holidays lookup for any country and year, plus single-date holiday checks.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one returns a full list of holidays for a country/year, the other checks a single date. There is no overlap in functionality, and each description explicitly notes when to prefer it.
Both names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_public_holidays and is_public_holiday. The verbs 'get' and 'is' appropriately reflect the different action types, while the resource 'public holiday(s)' is shared.
At 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its stated purpose of holiday queries. It is slightly on the thin side, yet both tools are essential and cover the core use cases without redundancy.
The server covers the two primary holiday operations: listing all holidays for a country/year and checking a specific date. A minor gap is the lack of a date-range query, but the existing tools handle the vast majority of typical requests.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_public_holidaysARead-onlyInspect
Full list of official public holidays for a country in a given
year. Use for "what are the holidays in Germany in 2026", planning
around a country's holiday calendar, or any "list the holidays for X"
question. country_code is a 2-letter ISO code (US, GB, DE, FR, JP,
...) -- roughly 100 countries are covered, not every country
worldwide. Returns each holiday's date, local name, English name, and
type (e.g. Public, Bank, Observance).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| country_code | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return format (date, local name, English name, type) and the scope of coverage (not every country). It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a read-only list tool, this is substantial additional context.
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 well-structured and concise: it opens with the core purpose, then provides usage examples, parameter clarification, and return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 tool has an output schema and the description covers the main behavioral aspects (return fields, country coverage). It could mention invalid input behavior, but given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining `country_code` is a 2-letter ISO code and lists examples (US, GB, DE, FR, JP). The `year` parameter is evident from the context 'in a given year,' and the return fields clarify expected output.
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's function: 'Full list of official public holidays for a country in a given year.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('public holidays'), and differentiates from the sibling tool `is_public_holiday` by emphasizing 'full list' versus single-date checking.
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 concrete usage examples ('what are the holidays in Germany in 2026') and general use cases ('planning around a country's holiday calendar, or any list the holidays for X question'). It also notes a limitation (roughly 100 countries covered), which guides when the tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
is_public_holidayARead-onlyInspect
Checks whether one specific date is a public holiday in a country,
and names it if so. Use for "is Dec 25 2026 a holiday in the US",
"is the office closed on this date", or any single-date holiday check
-- prefer this over get_public_holidays when the question is about
just one day. country_code is a 2-letter ISO code; date is
YYYY-MM-DD. Returns whether it's a holiday and, if so, its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| country_code | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is already declared. The description adds useful behavioral context: it names the holiday if applicable and explicitly states the return content ('Returns whether it's a holiday and, if so, its name'). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage examples, parameter clarification, and return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose, usage, alternative, parameter formats, and return value. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 schema only specifies parameter types ('string'), but the description adds meaning: 'country_code is a 2-letter ISO code; date is YYYY-MM-DD.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, clarifying format and semantics.
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 'Checks whether one specific date is a public holiday in a country, and names it if so,' which specifies the exact action and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by saying 'prefer this over get_public_holidays when the question is about just one day.'
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 explicit use cases ('is Dec 25 2026 a holiday in the US', 'is the office closed on this date') and explicitly names the alternative tool (get_public_holidays) with guidance on when to use which. This is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenancePublic holiday data for 30+ countries. Check holidays, working days, and full calendars via AI assistants like Claude and Cursor.Last updatedMIT
- Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceProvides public holidays, long weekends, and country data for 202 countries via the Nager.Date API, with client-side filtering and timezone-aware checks.Last updatedBSD Zero Clause
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceProvides authoritative Philippine national holiday data sourced from official presidential proclamations, including regular, special, and Islamic holidays. It enables users to query specific dates, retrieve upcoming holidays, identify long weekends, and verify working day status.Last updated10MIT
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceProvides access to the Nager.Date Public Holiday API for querying global holiday information through the Model Context Protocol. It enables AI agents to interact with standardized tools for holiday-related date calculations and country-specific lookups.Last updated