get_week_yearReturns the week number and ISO week number for a given date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | The date to check (e.g., "2025-03-23"). Defaults to current date |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week | Yes | ||
| isoWeek | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / date / descriptionPrevious value: -"The date to check. e.g., \"2025-03-23\""New value: +"The date to check (e.g., \"2025-03-23\"). Defaults to current date"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "isoWeek": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "week": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "week",
+ "isoWeek"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds clarity that both the standard week number and ISO week number are returned. No destructive side effects or auth requirements apply. The description doesn't discuss edge cases like invalid dates, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.
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 a single sentence, directly states the core functionality, and avoids redundant content. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what is returned and the input is given via schema. However, it could mention the default date behavior in the description itself, but schema covers it, so minor 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?
The schema fully documents the single parameter 'date' with an example and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond saying 'for a given date', which is already evident. 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 clearly states the tool returns week number and ISO week number for a given date. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like current_time or convert_time. The verb 'Returns' is functionally clear.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage via its statement, but there is no mention of when to choose this over relative_time or get_timestamp. Score 3 due to implied usage only.
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.