Lists holiday keys configured on the NetBox system, returning them as a comma-separated string. Retrieve details for each key individually.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a comma-separated key string rather than a list of records, that it wraps NBAPI GetHolidays, and that there is no pagination. These are specific behavioral traits that go beyond the schema and significantly aid the agent in predicting output and limitations.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then provides the return format, the alternative tool, and the parameter note. Every clause earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, how it differs from get_holiday, and its calling constraints. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds a note that there are no documented calling parameters, which reinforces the schema. No further parameter explanation is needed.
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 verb 'Lists' and the resource 'holiday keys configured on the NetBox system', and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_holiday by noting the return format and that get_holiday is for details. This makes its purpose unmistakable.
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?
It explicitly directs the agent to use get_holiday per key for details, which is a clear alternative for a different use case. It also notes the lack of parameters and pagination, which informs when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need all keys' or list exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.