Converts a Hebrew date to a Gregorian (civil) date
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | Hebrew day of month | |
| year | Yes | Hebrew year | |
| month | Yes | Hebrew month name transliterated, like Elul or Tishrei |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / day / maximumRemoved value: -30Input schema / properties / day / minimumRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / year / maximumRemoved value: -9999Input schema / properties / year / minimumRemoved value: -1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the primary conversion behavior, but it does not mention output format, validation of invalid Hebrew dates, or any calendar edge-case handling. The main behavior is present, so this is not severely deficient, but additional detail would help.
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 states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the exact conversion direction.
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 is simple and required parameters are well documented, but there is no output schema and no description of the return value's format. An agent cannot tell whether the result is an ISO string, a date object, or another representation. This is a moderate completeness 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds no extra parameter nuance such as expected ranges, month normalization, or transliteration variants, which keeps it at the baseline.
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 ('Converts') and names both source and target resources ('Hebrew date' to 'Gregorian (civil) date'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling convert-gregorian-to-hebrew without ambiguity.
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 direction of conversion makes the intended use context clear: use this tool when you have a Hebrew date and need a Gregorian result. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative or state exclusions, but the counterpart is obvious from the sibling list.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: two cover bidirectional date conversion, while the others handle unique calendar computations like holidays, Torah portions, Shabbat times, Daf Yomi, and Yahrzeit. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names use lowercase hyphenated words, creating a uniform style. However, some names are verb-led (convert-gregorian-to-hebrew) while others are noun-led (daf-yomi, shabbat-times), which is a minor deviation from a single naming pattern but remains readable and predictable.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a Jewish calendar domain. Each tool addresses a distinct functionality, and the count fits comfortably within the ideal range for a focused utility server.
The server covers the core Jewish calendar needs: date conversion, annual holidays, Shabbat times, Torah portions, Daf Yomi, and Yahrzeit. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for a specific holiday date lookup (without retrieving the whole year) or more advanced halachic time calculations, but these are workable gaps.