Retrieve all Taiwanese holidays within a specified date range to plan schedules and avoid conflicts.
獲取指定日期範圍內的所有台灣假期
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | 結束日期，支援格式：YYYY-MM-DD 或 YYYYMMDD | |
| start_date | Yes | 開始日期，支援格式：YYYY-MM-DD 或 YYYYMMDD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. However, it only states the purpose (retrieving holidays in a range) and does not mention return format, error handling, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation. This leaves significant behavioral context unspecified.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately minimal for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool is simple with only two parameters, and the schema adequately documents those. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify the return structure or format (e.g., a list of holiday objects). The description implies the result is all holidays in the range, but a bit more detail would make it more complete.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions of date formats (YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb '獲取' (get) with a clear resource '所有台灣假期' (all Taiwan holidays) and scope '指定日期範圍內' (within specified date range). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_holiday (which checks a single date) and get_holiday_stats (which provides statistics).
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 implies the tool is used for retrieving holidays within a date range, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_holiday or get_holiday_stats. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.