add_business_daysCalculate Turkish business-day deadlines by adding or subtracting days from a date while skipping weekends and full-day public holidays.
Add (or subtract, with a negative number) N Turkish business days to a date, skipping weekends and full-day public holidays. Useful for legal, payment and delivery deadlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | Yes | Business days to add | |
| start | Yes | Start date YYYY-MM-DD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds the substantive behavior the annotations cannot: the holiday calendar is Turkish and only *full-day* holidays are skipped, implying half-day holidays are not. It doesn't mention error behavior for malformed dates or the return shape, keeping it from a 5.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the core semantics (what is added, what is skipped) front-loaded before the use-case hint. Nothing repeats the title or the schema.
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 two-parameter pure function with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers the essentials: arithmetic direction, calendar scope, and holiday granularity. Only the return type and invalid-date handling are left implicit, which is minor for an obviously date-in/date-out tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: a negative `days` value subtracts, and the unit is business days in the Turkish calendar rather than calendar days. It doesn't restate the ±1000 bound or the YYYY-MM-DD format, which the schema already carries.
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 (add/subtract), resource (Turkish business days) and behavior (skip weekends and full-day public holidays). It is clearly distinct from the arithmetic-free siblings in practice, but it never names count_business_days, the one sibling an agent could plausibly confuse it with.
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?
"Useful for legal, payment and delivery deadlines" gives a concrete usage context and the negative-value clause tells the agent subtraction is in-scope rather than a separate tool. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.