holiday_infoCheck if a date is a Chinese public holiday, compensatory workday, or regular workday. Get holiday name, statutory status, and salary multiplier for any date.
查询中国某日期的节假日 / 调休 / 是否工作日信息。
参数 date：YYYY-MM-DD，例如 "2026-10-01"。 返回：节假日名称、是否法定假日、是否调休补班工作日、工资倍率。 数据来自 timor.tech（公开、零凭证）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (timor.tech), states it is public and requires zero credentials, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or behavior for invalid dates, which are gaps for a data-lookup tool.
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 two sentences with zero fluff: the first states the purpose, the second covers the parameter, return fields, and data source. Each element earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded.
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?
Despite the simple one-parameter interface, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, how to format the parameter, what it returns, and the data source. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is adequately complete, though it could mention edge-case behavior for invalid dates or missing data.
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 input schema provides only a string type with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying the format YYYY-MM-DD and giving an explicit example ('2026-10-01'), which is essential for correct invocation.
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 clearly states the tool queries holiday, adjustment, and workday information for a specific Chinese date, and lists the return fields (holiday name, statutory status, adjustment workday, salary multiplier). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from random_poem and history_today, though not explicitly from holiday_summary.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling holiday_summary, nor any exclusions or alternative selection criteria. The description gives no contextual usage hints beyond stating what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.