opening_hoursRetrieve a business's daily operating hours for the week containing a specified date, with an option to skip the local cache for current schedule data.
Opening hours of the business, day by day, for the week of the given date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Any day in the week (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully adds that results are returned per-day over a whole week (implying a weekly payload), but says nothing about caching behavior, timezone, or how days without hours are represented.
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, sized appropriately for a simple two-parameter read tool. Slight redundancy in 'of the business, day by day' keeps it from a 5.
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 read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not hint at the shape of each day's entry (open/closed, intervals), timezone handling, or what happens when the date falls in a week spanning DST or missing data.
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 100%, so both 'date' and 'fresh' are already documented. The description's phrase 'week of the given date' reinforces that the date selects a week rather than a single day, which is mild added value, but the schema's own note ('Any day in the week') already carries this.
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 names the resource (opening hours) and specifies both granularity (day by day) and window (the week of the given date), which is more precise than the title alone. It stops short of distinguishing itself from any sibling such as calendar_open_slots, so it does not reach 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 the week of the given date' implies when the tool applies (fetching hours for a week), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related calendar or booking-rule tools, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.