Find public holidays and cultural observances for a country and year. Enter an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code to receive dates with type public or observance.
Public holidays and cultural observances for a country and year. Each row carries type: public or observance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Year, default current | |
| country | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, e.g. US |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds behavioral detail about the return row structure (each row carries a type field with values 'public' or 'observance'), which enriches beyond annotations. No contradictions detected.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding.
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 description covers its main function. However, without an output schema, the description does not detail other returned fields (e.g., date, name) or ordering, which would be helpful. It is adequate but leaves some gaps.
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%: both 'country' and 'year' have descriptive text in the schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning public holidays and cultural observances for a country and year. It mentions the row type (public or observance), which adds specificity. While it lacks a direct verb like 'list' or 'get', the intent is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like holiday_date by the country/year scope.
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 usage when needing holidays for a country and year, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like holiday_date, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is present but guidance on alternatives is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.