semanaCalculate the ISO 8601 week number (W1, W2...) for any YYYY-MM-DD date and get that week's Monday and Sunday.
Semana ISO 8601 (W1, W2...) de una fecha AAAA-MM-DD, con su lunes y su domingo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fecha | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nota | Yes | ||
| desde | Yes | ||
| hasta | Yes | ||
| de_total | Yes | ||
| etiqueta | Yes | ||
| etiqueta_con_anio | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the result includes the Monday and Sunday of the week, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about timezone handling, week-numbering edge cases (e.g., dates in early January belonging to week 52/53 of the prior year), or error behavior for malformed dates.
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?
One short sentence with zero waste; the key information (what is returned) is front-loaded. Nothing to trim.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the return shape, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a single-parameter pure computation, the remaining gap (edge-case behavior on week boundaries or invalid input) is minor.
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%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'fecha' parameter. It does add the expected format (AAAA-MM-DD), which the schema omits, but it does not cover edge cases such as invalid dates or whether the input is parsed strictly.
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 operation on a specific resource: computes the ISO 8601 week (W1, W2...) for a given date, plus the Monday and Sunday bounding that week. An agent can tell exactly what it returns. No sibling does date-week math, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is implied by the purpose (call it when you need the ISO week or week boundaries for a date), which is adequate for a simple utility but leaves no guidance about alternatives such as computing weeks client-side.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.