Retrieve Taiwan holiday statistics for a specified year or month. Use it to count holidays, identify makeup workdays, and plan schedules around public holidays.
獲取指定年份或年月的台灣假期統計資訊
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | 要查詢的年份 | |
| month | No | 要查詢的月份（可選），1-12 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Input schema / properties / year / maximumPrevious value: -2026New value: +2031v1.0.0Input schema / properties / year / maximumPrevious value: -2025New value: +2026Does 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 only says it returns '統計資訊' (statistics) without describing what those statistics contain, whether the call is read-only, what happens when month is omitted, or any cost/rate considerations.
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 efficient sentence with the scoping qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is economical, though the brevity leaves room that could have been spent on disambiguation without becoming bloated.
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 and no annotations, the description must explain the return values, but '統計資訊' is left undefined — an agent cannot tell whether it gets holiday counts, names, total days off, or workday ratios. It also gives no guidance on how the optional month changes the result shape.
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%, with both 'year' and the optional 'month' fully documented in the schema (including 1-12 bounds). The description's 'year or year-month' phrasing mirrors the schema's optional month without adding format or semantics beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb (獲取/get) and a specific resource (台灣假期統計資訊/Taiwan holiday statistics), and scopes it to a year or year-month. It is clearly a statistics/aggregate tool rather than a lister, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_holidays_in_range or get_workdays.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_holidays_in_range, get_workdays, check_holiday, or get_next_holidays. The only hint is the mention of year-or-year-month granularity, which is a scoping detail rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.