Lists holiday keys configured in NetBox, returning a comma-separated string. Use each key with get_holiday to retrieve details.
Lists holiday keys configured on the NetBox system (wraps NBAPI GetHolidays). Returns a comma-separated key string, not a list of records — use get_holiday per key for details. GetHolidays has no documented calling parameters (no pagination).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / STARTFROMKEYRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional. Pagination cursor to continue listing from a previous call.",
- "type": "string"
-}v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds meaningful behavior: the return is a comma-separated key string rather than records, and there is no pagination, which prevents an agent from attempting offset/limit handling.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose, return shape plus sibling routing, and parameter/pagination absence. The most decision-relevant fact (key string, not records) is front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description fills the gap by describing the return format and the absence of pagination; with zero params and readOnlyHint, nothing else is needed to invoke it correctly.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms this explicitly ('no documented calling parameters (no pagination)'), which is useful confirmation rather than mere silence.
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 ('Lists holiday keys configured on the NetBox system') and explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_holiday by describing itself as a key-only listing. An agent can tell it apart from get_holiday without opening either schema.
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?
Names the alternative ('use get_holiday per key for details') and the condition that selects it, which is clear routing guidance. It stops short of a full when/when-not statement, but the practical fork is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.