Microapp

jet-lag-calculator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Predict jet-lag severity and recovery time for a trip between two time zones. Accounts for the direction asymmetry — eastbound (clock advances) takes roughly 1 day per zone; westbound (clock falls back) takes ~2/3 of a day per zone. Returns severity band, estimated recovery days, and direction-specific adjustment tips (pre-flight schedule shift, light exposure, melatonin window, meal timing).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`toOffset`	Yes	Destination time zone as a UTC offset in hours. Same range and units as fromOffset.
`fromOffset`	Yes	Origin time zone as a UTC offset in hours. Range -12 (Baker Island) to +14 (Kiribati). Examples: New York = -5 (or -4 in DST), London = 0 (or +1 in BST), Tokyo = +9, Sydney = +10 (or +11 in AEDT).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tips`	Yes	Evidence-based jet-lag countermeasures tailored to direction and severity. Empty when origin and destination are in the same zone.
`severity`	Yes	Severity band. none = 0 zones; mild = under 3 zones; moderate = 3 through 6; severe = more than 6.
`toOffset`	Yes	Destination UTC offset, echoed back.
`diffHours`	Yes	Absolute time-zone difference in hours (always >= 0, max 12 — eastward and westward routes are equivalent past 12 zones).
`direction`	Yes	Direction of travel relative to circadian rhythm. 'east' = clock advances at destination (harder). 'west' = clock falls back (easier). 'none' = same time zone.
`fromOffset`	Yes	Origin UTC offset, echoed back.
`recoveryDays`	Yes	Estimated days to full circadian re-alignment. Eastbound ≈ 1 day per zone; westbound ≈ 0.67 days per zone. Rounded to one decimal place.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedMay 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses the core behavioral model: direction asymmetry with quantitative recovery rates (1 day per zone eastbound, ~2/3 day per zone westbound), and the exact output categories (severity band, recovery days, direction-specific tips). This provides deep transparency into how the tool computes and what it returns.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavioral rule, and output details. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety profile, the description completes the picture by explaining the algorithm directionality, output types, and even the nature of adjustment tips. There are no unresolved gaps for a calculator of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%: both fromOffset and toOffset are well described with ranges and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Predict') and resource ('jet-lag severity and recovery time for a trip between two time zones'), clearly distinguishing this calculator from general time zone tools. It further specifies direction asymmetry and returns categories, which sets it apart from sibling calculators.

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 makes it clear the tool is for predicting jet lag between two time zones, which is a clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but given the unique specialization, no close sibling competes directly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Microapp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?