Look up Swedish name days by date or name.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a distinct input and purpose: get_nameday_by_date takes a specific MM-DD date, get_nameday_today requires no input, and match_nameday_by_name takes a name for fuzzy matching. There is no overlap in how an agent would select among them.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern of verb + 'nameday' + qualifier (by_date, today, by_name). The verbs 'get' and 'match' are used appropriately, and the overall structure is predictable.
With only three tools, the server covers the essential operations for a name day lookup service without redundancy. Each tool serves a clear, non-overlapping purpose.
The surface covers retrieval by explicit date, today's date, and fuzzy name matching, which are the core use cases. However, there is no exact name lookup and no bulk listing of all name days, representing minor gaps.
Retrieve all names for a given date in MM-DD format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mm_dd | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | |
| names | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state what is returned ('all names'), which is useful, but says nothing about invalid/unsupported dates, leap-day handling, or error behavior for a malformed MM-DD string.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the format constraint is stated immediately after the purpose.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described further, and the tool is a low-complexity single-parameter read. The description covers purpose and input format but leaves invalid-date/edge-case behavior undocumented.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by specifying the required MM-DD format for the single parameter, which is the key semantic detail the schema omits. It does not clarify edge cases like 02-29 or leading-zero requirements.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve all names') and the input format ('MM-DD'), which implicitly separates it from get_nameday_today and match_nameday_by_name. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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 phrase 'for a given date' implies the caller already has a date and should use this over get_nameday_today, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve all names for today's date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | |
| names | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does establish the operation is a read of a complete name list ('all names'). It says nothing about timezone resolution, rate limits, or source of the data, but the operation is simple enough that these gaps are minor, and the output schema covers the return shape.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally informative.
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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call it. The only missing piece is timezone/definition of 'today' and explicit routing to the date-based sibling.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the fixed 'today' scope is correctly reflected in the schema's empty properties.
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?
States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all names'), scoped to today's date. That scope inherently distinguishes it from get_nameday_by_date, though it never names the sibling that handles arbitrary dates.
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?
Usage is implied by 'today's date' — an agent can infer this is the no-argument shortcut versus get_nameday_by_date. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative, and no note about timezone or what 'today' resolves to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve all names for the date of the best fuzzy name match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| min_score | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | |
| names | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the core behavior: fuzzy matching that selects the single best match. However, it omits what happens when no match clears the threshold, whether ties are broken, and how the score drives selection. Output schema covers the return shape, which lowers the remaining burden.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specifying the matching semantics.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a fuzzy-matching tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations, the description leaves key operational facts unstated: the role of min_score, fallback behavior on no match, and how 'best' is determined.
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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Fuzzy name match' loosely implies the name parameter's role, but min_score (default 85) is never mentioned or explained, leaving its meaning and effect undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve all names for the date') qualified by the matching mode ('best fuzzy name match'). This implicitly separates it from the date-based siblings get_nameday_by_date and get_nameday_today, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the name input and fuzzy matching suggest 'use this when you have a name rather than a date.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer a date-based sibling, and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_nameday_by_dateget_nameday_todaymatch_nameday_by_name
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.