List Luxembourg legal public holidays in four languages, optionally for one year.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_public_holidays"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that results are in four languages and can be filtered by year, but does not mention the number of holidays, response format, or any rate limits. It is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the purpose and including key details without any waste. It earns its place entirely.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, where (Luxembourg), and the multilingual and year-filter capabilities. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its use.
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 explicitly stating the year parameter is optional ('optionally for one year'). However, it does not provide further detail on the parameter's format or behavior. Since there is only one parameter, the description adds value beyond the 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 'List Luxembourg legal public holidays in four languages, optionally for one year.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (public holidays), scope (Luxembourg legal), and additional details (four languages, optional year filter). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools, which cover other domains.
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 implies usage context (listing Luxembourg public holidays) and the sibling tool names clearly differentiate their purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough but lacks explicit guidance.
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.