Convert a Hijri (Islamic) date to a Gregorian date.
Convert a Hijri (Islamic) date to a Gregorian date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | Hijri day, 1 to 30. | |
| year | Yes | Hijri year (e.g., 1447). | |
| month | Yes | Hijri month, 1 (Muharram) to 12 (Dhu al-Hijjah). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no note on which Hijri calendar variant (Umm al-Qura vs tabular) is used, which materially affects conversion results.
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 the operation verb first and the direction explicit; nothing is wasted and nothing needs trimming for a simple conversion tool.
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?
Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, leaving the description sufficient to call the tool. It falls short of 5 only because the Hijri calendar variant (e.g., Umm al-Qura) is not stated, a detail that changes the output date.
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%: day, month and year are each documented with ranges and even the month-name mapping (Muharram/Dhu al-Hijjah). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb (convert) and both resources (Hijri date → Gregorian date), making the conversion direction unambiguous. This directionality inherently distinguishes it from its sibling gregorian_to_hijri without needing to name it.
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 never mentions the inverse tool gregorian_to_hijri or any alternative. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and direction phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.