plan_my_personal_yearCalculate the numerology personal year for a calendar year and the personal month theme for each of its 12 months, from a date of birth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | Calendar year to plan, e.g. 2027 | |
| birth_date | Yes | Date of birth as YYYY-MM-DD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds that output is derived purely from the birth date and comprises one annual number plus twelve monthly themes, which is useful. It still says nothing about determinism across years, edge cases, or result format.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, no repetition of the title, and the output scope stated before the input source. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description does the important remaining job of stating what the result contains: an annual personal-year number plus twelve monthly themes. A note on seasonality or the meaning of the returned numbers would make it fully self-sufficient.
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 100%, and the schema documents both 'year' (with 1900-2100 bounds) and 'birth_date' (YYYY-MM-DD). The description only echoes that the calculation starts 'from a date of birth' and targets a 'calendar year', adding no format or range detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Calculate') with a precisely scoped resource ('numerology personal year' plus 'personal month theme for each of its 12 months') and names the input ('a date of birth'). It is clearly narrower than the sibling calculate_numerology, though it never explicitly names that sibling to route the agent.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'to plan' a calendar year, so an agent can infer this is the year-planning variant. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to alternatives such as calculate_numerology or build_productivity_plan despite many overlapping siblings.
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.