Australian business days and holiday-aware due dates for your AI agent.
Scored across 3 tools
business_days and due_date both compute dates offset by business days, so an agent could confuse general business-day arithmetic with due-date calculation. The due_date description adds calendar-day support and due-date framing, which helps, and next_holidays is clearly distinct.
All names use lowercase snake_case and are concise, with no mixed camelCase or chaotic conventions. They are noun/concept phrases rather than a uniform verb_noun pattern, but the style is still consistent and predictable.
Three tools is a small but reasonable surface for a narrow Australian business-calendar utility. Each tool covers a distinct calculation, though the set is slightly thin and due_date overlaps behaviorally with business_days.
The server covers business-day offsets, due dates, and upcoming holidays, but lacks operations for arbitrary holiday lookup, checking whether a specific date is a business day, or listing holidays for a date range. These are notable gaps for calendar workflows.
PRO. Add/subtract N Australian business days from a date (national holiday set).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | Yes | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| access_token | No | Subscriber token from /success (or Authorization: Bearer) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that calculations use the Australian national holiday set and that both addition and subtraction are supported, but it omits the expected date format, timezone assumptions, how negative or zero offsets behave, and what the return value looks like.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and scope, with no redundant or filler content.
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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and holiday basis. However, it leaves out the date format expected for 'start', the format of the returned date, and any behavior around non-business starting dates, which an agent would need to invoke it reliably.
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 33%, with only the access_token parameter documented in the schema. The description partially compensates by clarifying that 'days' is a signed offset (add/subtract N) and that 'start' is a base date, but it does not specify date syntax or constraints such as whether zero is allowed.
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 states a specific operation (add/subtract N business days) and a precise resource (Australian business days using the national holiday set). The purpose is clear without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like due_date or next_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?
Aside from the 'PRO' tag implying a paid/subscriber feature, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus due_date or next_holidays. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
PRO. Due date from start + N calendar or business days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | Yes | ||
| mode | No | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| access_token | No | Subscriber token from /success (or Authorization: Bearer) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it reveals only that two day-counting modes exist. It says nothing about whether this is a pure computation, what the returned value looks like, whether the result skips weekends or holidays, or that an access_token is required for a PRO-tier call.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is front-loaded and cheap to read. The 'PRO.' prefix is unexplained noise, and concision here reads more like under-specification than discipline.
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?
A four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover mode values, date format, return shape, and auth. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call this confidently without inspecting sibling tools.
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 coverage is only 25% — only access_token is documented — so start, days, and mode rely on description text. The description maps loosely onto start/days and hints that mode selects calendar vs. business days, but it never states the accepted mode values or the expected date format for start, so half the semantics remain guesswork.
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 names a concrete computation (due date = start + N days) and the two modes that govern it, which is enough to know what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish it from the sibling business_days, which appears to be the obvious alternative for the business-day case.
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?
There is no guidance on when to pick this over business_days or next_holidays, and no statement about how holidays interact with the business-day count. The only implied routing signal is the vague 'calendar or business days' phrasing, which is left for the agent to interpret.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
FREE. Next 3 AU public holidays and whether today is a weekday non-holiday.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (3 holidays plus a weekday/non-holiday flag) and that the call is free/no-cost, but says nothing about timezone, state-level AU variation, or whether the result is cached.
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?
One compact sentence with the core resource front-loaded. The 'FREE.' prefix is minor noise but conveys a genuinely useful cost signal.
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 description must explain returns, and it does so adequately. However, for an 'AU' holiday tool the absence of any state/timezone scope note is a meaningful gap an agent would need to call 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
States a specific resource ('next 3 AU public holidays') and a secondary output ('whether today is a weekday non-holiday'), which lets an agent understand what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling business_days, which likely overlaps in purpose.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus business_days or due_date, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the topic, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
business_daysdue_datenext_holidaysReliable Australian business-day, public-holiday and deadline tools for AI agents.
Japanese business days, holiday checks and invoice due dates for your AI agent.
US federal holidays, business-day maths, invoice due dates and IRS deadlines.
Public holiday data for 30+ countries. Check holidays, working days and calendars via AI assistants.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
