Formats a Jalali (Persian) calendar date from year, month, and day using tokens like YYYY, MM, DD, and dddd. Supports optional Persian digits for localized output.
Format a Jalali date. Tokens: YYYY YY MMMM MM M DD D dddd.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| month | Yes | ||
| pattern | No | ||
| persianDigits | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state what the tool returns, whether the result is a string, how persianDigits affects output, what the default pattern is, or whether there are side effects. The token list is useful but mostly concerns the pattern parameter rather than overall behavior.
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 short sentences with zero filler and is front-loaded with the core purpose. The token list is compact and directly useful for constructing the pattern argument.
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 annotations, no output schema, five parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits return format, default behavior, persianDigits semantics, and any relationship to sibling date tools, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent trying 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only documents the pattern tokens. It does not explain the persianDigits boolean, does not state that pattern is optional or what its default is, and does not add meaning for year, month, or day beyond the schema. The token list is helpful but does not compensate for the undocumented remaining parameters.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Format a Jalali date." It also lists formatting tokens, which clarifies the pattern parameter. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling date tools such as parse_jalali_date, jalali_add, or gregorian_to_jalali.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this tool is for producing formatted Jalali date strings rather than parsing, adding, or converting dates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.