convert_to_hijriConvert a Gregorian date to the Hijri (Islamic) calendar date. Useful for Islamic calendar date conversion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Gregorian date in DD-MM-YYYY format, e.g. "07-06-2026". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "date": "07-06-2026"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the conversion action, such as handling of invalid dates or output format. It relies on annotations for safety but provides no extra context.
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?
Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The purpose is stated first, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.
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?
Given the simple conversion task, good annotations, and clear parameter schema, the description is generally adequate. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., format of Hijri date), which is a gap since there is no output schema.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the date parameter format (DD-MM-YYYY). The tool description does not add extra semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states it converts a Gregorian date to the Hijri calendar date, with a specific verb and resource. This purpose is distinct and well-defined.
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 says 'Useful for Islamic calendar date conversion,' which implies usage context but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like hijri_calendar. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, though there is some overlap between `ai_visibility_check` and `scan_competitor_ai_presence`, and between `bet_research` and `polymarket_edges`. Overall, an agent can distinguish them.
Tool names follow snake_case but vary in prefix usage (e.g., `pipeworx_*`, `polymarket_*`, no prefix) and verb presence (e.g., `discover_tools` vs. `generate_llms_txt`). The pattern is readable but inconsistent.
With 24 tools, the server is overloaded for the 'Prayer Times' name. Many tools are unrelated to prayer, suggesting poor scoping relative to the server's implied purpose.
For prayer times, the server includes core tools but lacks features like multi-day forecasts or advanced settings. However, the inclusion of many unrelated tools makes the set incoherent and incomplete for any single domain.