Count business days between two dates (excluding weekends).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| start_date | Yes | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| total_days | No | ||
| weekend_days | No | ||
| business_days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: excluding weekends. However, it does not mention whether holidays are excluded, how edge cases (e.g., start/end date inclusivity) are handled, or the output format. Still, the core behavior is clear.
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 with 8 words, front-loading the key purpose. No unnecessary text; every word contributes to clarity.
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 business day counter, the description covers the essential purpose and the weekend-exclusion behavior. It is largely complete given the availability of an output schema (not shown but indicated). However, it could specify whether start and end dates are inclusive in the count, and whether holidays are considered.
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 input schema already describes both parameters with format hints (YYYY-MM-DD). The description adds context (business days) but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 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 the tool's purpose: counting business days between two dates while excluding weekends. The verb 'Count' and resource 'business days' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like 'date_diff' (which counts all days) or 'add_business_days'.
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 usage for counting working days excluding weekends, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'date_diff' or 'add_business_days'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
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.
