get_holidays
Get Korean public holidays for a given year (2024-2026).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Year (2024, 2025, or 2026). Default 2026. |
govdata-korea
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the year-range constraint (2024-2026), which is useful. However, it does not mention return format, invalid input handling, or confirm that this is a read-only operation. For a simple GET, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and constraint with zero filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the very low complexity (one optional parameter) and lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the tool returns conceptually (Korean holidays for a year). It could mention the output structure, but for a simple lookup against sibling tools of similar nature, the context is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the 'year' parameter already has a detailed description in the schema ('Year (2024, 2025, or 2026). Default 2026.'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond repeating the supported years, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'Korean public holidays' and scoping 'for a given year (2024-2026)'. It distinguishes from sibling data-lookup tools like get_exchange_rates and get_population by naming a unique domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that the tool is for grabbing Korean holidays for a specific year, which implies use when holiday data is needed. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are topically distinct enough that no confusion arises.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct (business types, holidays, population, postal codes), but get_economic_indicators includes exchange rates in its list, overlapping with the dedicated get_exchange_rates tool. The descriptions clarify the different levels of detail, so the ambiguity is minor.
Naming Consistency4/5
Five tools use the 'get_' prefix while one uses 'lookup_' (lookup_postal_code). The verb_noun pattern is dominant, but the mixed prefix is a slight inconsistency. The naming is otherwise clean and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools covering key Korean government data areas (business codes, economic indicators, exchange rates, holidays, population, postal codes), the count is well-scoped. Each tool represents a distinct data domain and none are redundant or superfluous.
Completeness4/5
The set covers major statistical and reference data for South Korea, but the overlap between economic indicators and exchange rates suggests the domain is not fully nailed down. It lacks other common public datasets (e.g., taxation, education), but the core categories are present and usable.