Convert a BaZi (Four Pillars) string into possible Gregorian birth dates. Enter space-separated pillars to get all matching solar datetimes from 1700 to today.
Find possible birth dates from a BaZi string. Returns all matching solar datetimes from 1700 to present. 根据八字反查公历出生时间。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bazi | Yes | BaZi string (space-separated four pillars), e.g. "戊寅 己未 己卯 辛未". 八字（空格分隔四柱）。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the search range (1700 to present) and that all matching solar datetimes are returned. It says nothing about cardinality of results, ordering, ambiguity handling, or performance limits, which matter for a reverse-lookup that can be one-to-many.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the return behavior. The Chinese sentence duplicates the English content, adding length, but serves a plausible bilingual-audience purpose.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input form, result content, and temporal range. It stops short of noting that multiple dates may match or how results are ordered, a minor gap.
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% and the single bazi parameter is already documented with format and an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further format or parsing semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies for a 1-param tool with full coverage.
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 (find) and resource (possible birth dates) plus the input (a BaZi string), which reads clearly as the inverse of the sibling getBaziChart. It does not name the sibling, so the distinction must be inferred from the direction of the lookup.
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?
Usage is implied by 'from a BaZi string' (use this when you have pillars and want dates), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no reference to getBaziChart as the opposite-direction alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.