Generates Shabbat and holiday candle-lighting and Havdalah times for a given location and date range
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tzid | Yes | Olson timezone ID (e.g. "America/Chicago", "Europe/Moscow") | |
| endDate | Yes | End date in yyyy-MM-dd format | |
| latitude | Yes | Latitude as decimal, valid range -90 to +90 (e.g. 41.85003) | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude as decimal, valid range -180 to +180 (e.g. -87.65005) | |
| startDate | Yes | Start date in yyyy-MM-dd format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / latitude / maximumRemoved value: -90Input schema / properties / latitude / minimumRemoved value: --90Input schema / properties / longitude / maximumRemoved value: -180Input schema / properties / longitude / minimumRemoved value: --180Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the core output but does not disclose behavior around timezone handling, invalid coordinates, holiday edge cases, or response format. This is not a contradiction, but it is a significant gap.
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 conveys the tool's purpose without filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 five required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description gives enough to attempt invocation but not enough to predict return values or error edge cases. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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%, with each parameter already documented with format, bounds, or examples. The description adds only the conceptual mapping of location to latitude/longitude and date range to start/end dates, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb ('Generates') and a well-defined resource: Shabbat and holiday candle-lighting and Havdalah times for a location and date range. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling conversion, holiday-listing, and Torah-reading tools.
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 when to use the tool: when candle-lighting or Havdalah times are needed for a location and date range. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives, leaving some routing judgment to the agent.
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.