Free German workforce calculators (bridge days, net working time, staffing/PeBeM) - no auth needed.
Berechnet die effizientesten Brückentage für ein Jahr (2026–2030) und ein deutsches Bundesland: welche Urlaubstage ergeben die längsten zusammenhängenden Frei-Blöcke. Deterministische Rechnung auf Basis der gesetzlichen Feiertage — keine KI-Schätzung. Interaktive Version: https://vigotime.com/de/tools/brueckentage-rechner
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jahr | Yes | Kalenderjahr (2026–2030) | |
| bundesland | Yes | Bundesland-Code, z. B. SN, BY, NW | |
| samstag_frei | No | true = Mo–Fr-Woche (Samstag frei), false = Mo–Sa | |
| urlaubstage_budget | No | Verfügbare Urlaubstage |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| vorschlaege | Yes | |
| maxFreieTage | Yes | |
| besteEffizienz | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, `idempotentHint: true`, so the tool is safe and deterministic. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'deterministic calculation—no AI estimation,' which reinforces the behavior beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.
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 efficiently structured with two focused sentences plus a URL reference. It front-loads the core purpose and context. The URL to an interactive version may add slight bloat but is justified as an external reference. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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 has moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 enum, output schema present). The description explains the core calculation purpose and deterministic nature well. With an output schema present, return value explanation is not needed. However, it lacks explicit explanation of how `samstag_frei` or `urlaubstage_budget` affect results, slightly reducing completeness.
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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description provides no additional information about parameters beyond what the schema includes. According to guidelines, since coverage is high (>80%), a 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 states a specific verb and resource (calculate the most efficient bridge days for a year) while distinguishing itself from siblings. It explicitly mentions the German federal state context (Bundesland) and the deterministic calculation based on public holidays, which differentiates it from tools like `compare_bridge_day_years` or `calculate_net_working_time`.
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 clearly defines the context: calculate bridge days for years 2026-2030 and a German federal state. It implies when to use (for optimizing vacation days to maximize consecutive free blocks). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives among siblings, which would elevate the score to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Berechnet den PeBeM-VZÄ-Höchstwert einer Pflegeeinrichtung aus der Bewohnerstruktur (Anzahl Bewohner je Pflegegrad 1–5) nach § 113c SGB XI — aufgeschlüsselt nach Qualifikationsniveau (Fachkraft, Hilfskraft mit/ohne Ausbildung).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pflegegrad_1 | No | Bewohner mit Pflegegrad 1 | |
| pflegegrad_2 | No | Bewohner mit Pflegegrad 2 | |
| pflegegrad_3 | No | Bewohner mit Pflegegrad 3 | |
| pflegegrad_4 | No | Bewohner mit Pflegegrad 4 | |
| pflegegrad_5 | No | Bewohner mit Pflegegrad 5 |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| vzaeGesamt | Yes | |
| gesamtBewohner | Yes | |
| vzaeProQualifikation | Yes | VZÄ je Qualifikationsniveau (Fachkraft, Hilfskraft mit/ohne Ausbildung) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the regulatory basis and output breakdown, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error handling, authentication needs, or effects of extreme inputs. It does not contradict annotations.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that packs the verb, input, legal reference, and output detail efficiently. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Berechnet den PeBeM-VZÄ-Höchstwert') and contains no superfluous words.
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?
Given the five parameters are fully documented in the schema and an output schema exists (so return details are not needed), the description covers the calculation purpose, input, legal basis, and output structure well. It could mention prerequisite assumptions (e.g., that inputs represent current residents), but is largely complete.
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% with each parameter described as 'Bewohner mit Pflegegrad X'. The description broadly confirms inputs are the resident structure but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 states it calculates the PeBeM-VZÄ-Höchstwert from resident counts by Pflegegrad 1–5, referencing the legal mandate § 113c SGB XI. It distinguishes from siblings by naming a specific regulatory metric and output breakdown by qualification levels.
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 context (when you have resident counts and need the PeBeM staffing value), but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus siblings like calculate_shift_staffing or compare_bridge_day_years. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Berechnet die tatsächlich verfügbare Netto-Arbeitszeit einer Vollzeitkraft pro Jahr: Bruttoarbeitstage minus Urlaub, Krankheit, Fortbildung und Feiertage — als Tage, Stunden und Quote, optional als Team-Summe. Interaktive Version: https://vigotime.com/de/tools/nettoarbeitszeit-rechner
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feiertage | Yes | Gesetzliche Feiertage auf Werktagen | |
| kranktage | Yes | Durchschnittliche Krankheitstage pro Jahr | |
| urlaubstage | Yes | Urlaubstage pro Jahr | |
| vollzeitkraefte | No | Anzahl Vollzeitkräfte im Team | |
| fortbildungstage | No | Fortbildungstage pro Jahr | |
| wochenstunden_vollzeit | No | Wochenstunden Vollzeit |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ausfallSummeAt | Yes | Ausfalltage gesamt (Urlaub+Krank+Fortbildung+Feiertage) |
| nettoarbeitstage | Yes | |
| nettostundenTeam | Yes | |
| bruttoarbeitstage | Yes | |
| nettoquoteProzent | Yes | |
| ausfallquoteProzent | Yes | |
| nettostundenProKraft | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool is a calculation (read operation) and can optionally compute a team sum, which adds context beyond the idempotentHint and readOnlyHint annotations. However, it does not explain what assumptions the calculation makes (e.g., base working days per year, treatment of weekends) or whether it handles regional variations. With annotations already signaling a safe, idempotent read, the description provides adequate but not rich behavioral detail.
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 long and front-loads the core purpose. The first sentence covers the function and outputs efficiently. The second sentence provides a reference URL, which is not strictly necessary but adds a helpful external resource. Almost no wasted words.
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 description covers inputs (deductions) and outputs (days, hours, ratio, team total). It does not explicitly state the assumed gross working days base (e.g., 260 days or 52 weeks), which could be important for understanding the calculation. However, the presence of an output schema likely documents return values, reducing the need for that detail. Overall, it is nearly complete for a straightforward calculation tool.
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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by explaining that the 'vollzeitkraefte' parameter enables an 'optional team total' output, which is not explicitly stated in the schema property description ('Anzahl Vollzeitkräfte im Team'). This gives the agent a clearer understanding of how parameters combine to produce output.
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 calculates net working time of a full-time employee per year, specifying the inputs (gross working days minus vacation, illness, training, holidays) and outputs (days, hours, ratio, optional team total). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_bridge_days or calculate_shift_staffing, which handle different staffing/time calculations.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The differentiation is only implicit through the tool's distinct purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Berechnet den Personalbedarf (VZÄ) eines Schichtbetriebs: jährlich zu besetzende Stunden geteilt durch die Netto-Jahresarbeitszeit einer Vollzeitkraft (Brutto minus Urlaub, Feiertage, Fortbildung), multipliziert mit dem Ausfallfaktor 1/(1 − Ausfallquote). Der krankheitsbedingte Ausfall fließt ausschließlich über die Ausfallquote ein — genau einmal. Reine Arithmetik nach offengelegter Formel. Interaktive Version: https://vigotime.com/de/tools/personalbedarf-pflege
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feiertage | No | Feiertage auf Werktagen | |
| urlaubstage | No | Urlaubstage pro Jahr | |
| fruehschicht | Yes | Besetzung Frühschicht (Personen) | |
| nachtschicht | Yes | Besetzung Nachtschicht (Personen) | |
| spaetschicht | Yes | Besetzung Spätschicht (Personen) | |
| fortbildungstage | No | Fortbildungstage pro Jahr | |
| ausfallquote_prozent | No | Krankheitsbedingte Ausfallquote in Prozent der planbaren Arbeitszeit. Ersetzt einen pauschalen Puffer: Krankheit darf NICHT zusätzlich von den Arbeitstagen abgezogen werden. | |
| schichtdauer_stunden | No | Dauer einer Schicht in Stunden | |
| betriebstage_pro_woche | No | Betriebstage pro Woche | |
| wochenstunden_vollzeit | No | Wochenstunden Vollzeit |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| fteRoh | Yes | VZÄ inkl. Ausfallfaktor, ungerundet |
| fteEmpfohlen | Yes | VZÄ inkl. Ausfallfaktor, aufgerundet |
| ausfallfaktor | Yes | 1 / (1 − Ausfallquote) |
| deckungsstufe | Yes | |
| schichtenProTag | Yes | |
| bedarfOhneAusfall | Yes | VZÄ vor Ausfallfaktor |
| betriebstageProJahr | Yes | |
| nettostundenProVzJahr | Yes | Netto-Jahresarbeitszeit je VZÄ in Stunden |
| besetzungsstundenProJahr | Yes | Jährlich zu besetzende Stunden |
| nettoArbeitstageProVzJahr | Yes | Planbare Arbeitstage je VZÄ (ohne Krankheit) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Die Annotationen liefern bereits readOnlyHint und idempotentHint. Die Beschreibung ergänzt wertvollen Kontext: „Reine Arithmetik nach offengelegter Formel“ und die ausdrückliche Warnung, dass Krankheit nur über die Ausfallquote genau einmal eingeht. Das geht über die Annotationen hinaus und widerspricht ihnen nicht.
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?
Drei dichte Sätze, die Formel steht vorne, keine unnötigen Wiederholungen des Schemas. Der Link zur interaktiven Version ist für einen Agenten nicht zwingend erforderlich, daher ein leichter Abzug, aber insgesamt sehr kompakt.
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?
Angesichts von 10 Parametern, vollständiger Schema-Dokumentation und vorhandenem Output-Schema ist die Beschreibung weitgehend vollständig: Formel, Berechnungslogik und wichtige Verhaltensregeln sind enthalten. Es fehlt nur eine explizite Nutzungsabgrenzung zu den Sibling-Tools.
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?
Die Schema-Abdeckung ist mit 100 % hoch, daher liegt die Baseline bei 3. Die Beschreibung fügt jedoch formelhafte Bedeutung hinzu, indem sie Netto-Jahresarbeitszeit als Brutto minus Urlaub, Feiertage und Fortbildung definiert und die Rolle der Ausfallquote im Nenner erklärt. Das ergänzt die reinen Parameterbeschreibungen sinnvoll.
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?
Die Beschreibung nennt ein konkretes Verb und eine Ressource: Sie berechnet den Personalbedarf (VZÄ) eines Schichtbetriebs und legt die Formel offen. Eine explizite Abgrenzung zu den ähnlichen Sibling-Tools wie calculate_care_staffing_pebem oder calculate_net_working_time fehlt jedoch, daher keine volle Punktzahl.
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?
Der Kontext „Schichtbetrieb“ und die Formel machen den Anwendungsfall implizit klar. Es gibt aber keine expliziten Wann-/Wann-nicht-Hinweise und keine Abgrenzung zu Alternativen, was bei mehreren Rechen-Tools in der Sibling-Liste sinnvoll wäre.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Vergleicht die Jahre 2026–2030 für ein Bundesland: welches Jahr eignet sich am besten für Brückentage (Score aus der Feiertagslage, offengelegte Formel, rein regelbasiert).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bundesland | Yes | Bundesland-Code, z. B. SN, BY, NW | |
| samstag_frei | No | true = Mo–Fr-Woche (Samstag frei), false = Mo–Sa |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| jahre | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-mutating behavior. The description adds transparency by stating the formula is 'disclosed' and 'purely rule-based', which builds trust. It does not contradict annotations. Slight deduction because it doesn't detail what 'disclosed' means or mention any side effects, but annotations cover the core safety profile.
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 sentence efficiently communicates the core purpose, scope, and nature (disclosed formula, rule-based). Every phrase serves a purpose; no redundancy or unnecessary detail. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
Given an output schema exists (covering return values), the description covers all essentials: what it does, the year range, the metric (score), and the methodology (disclosed rule-based formula). For a comparative analysis tool, this is complete – no missing context that would hinder correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'bundesland' has an enum of state codes, 'samstag_frei' has a default and meaning. The description adds value by specifying the year range (2026–2030) which is not in the schema, providing essential context beyond the parameters themselves.
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 compares years 2026–2030 for a federal state to identify the best year for bridge days, using a disclosed rule-based formula. It specifies the action ('compare') and the resource ('Bundesland'), and while it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'calculate_bridge_days', the unique scope (multi-year comparison) is evident.
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 explains the tool's purpose (comparing years for bridge days) but provides no guidance on when to use it versus the sibling 'calculate_bridge_days' or other tools. It implicitly suggests use for multi-year comparisons, but lacks explicit context or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Kurzprofil von vigotime: regelbasierte, automatische Dienstplanung mit Wunschsystem, Urlaubsverwaltung und Zeiterfassung für Schichtbetriebe (Pflege, Klinik, Labor, Gastronomie, Produktion u. a.). Liefert Produktüberblick, die wichtigsten Links und den Weg zum vollwertigen Produkt-MCP (Dienstpläne per Tool-Call rechnen lassen).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| links | Yes | Wichtige vigotime-URLs |
| produkt | Yes | |
| anbieter | Yes | |
| produkt_mcp | Yes | |
| zielgruppen | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context beyond these: it reveals the tool returns a product profile, links, and a pointer to the full MCP. No behavioral contradictions. The description enriches understanding of what the read-only operation yields.
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 in German, front-loaded with the purpose ('Kurzprofil von vigotime') and immediately followed by product context and what the tool provides. Every sentence is meaningful with zero redundancy. Very concise.
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?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema (from context signals), the description fully covers what the agent needs: it explains the tool's purpose, the content of the profile, and the path to the full MCP. No gaps remain for a read-only informational tool.
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 tool has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the output and usage context.
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 provides a 'Kurzprofil' (short profile) of the vigotime product, including product overview, key links, and the path to the full product MCP. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all calculation-oriented (e.g., calculate_bridge_days). No tautology or ambiguity.
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 explains what the tool delivers but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. While sibling tool names (all 'calculate_*') strongly imply they are for calculations and this tool for product info, the description lacks explicit guidance like 'Use this for product overview; use sibling tools for shift calculations.' No exclusions or when-not logic is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
calculate_shift_staffing17 fields changedInput schema / properties / ausfallquote_prozentAdded value: +{
+ "default": 11.6,
+ "description": "Krankheitsbedingte Ausfallquote in Prozent der planbaren Arbeitszeit. Ersetzt einen pauschalen Puffer: Krankheit darf NICHT zusätzlich von den Arbeitstagen abgezogen werden.",
+ "maximum": 60,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / fortbildungstage / defaultPrevious value: -3New value: +5Input schema / properties / kranktageRemoved value: -{
- "default": 15,
- "description": "Krankheitstage pro Jahr",
- "maximum": 120,
- "minimum": 0,
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / puffer_prozentRemoved value: -{
- "default": 10,
- "description": "Sicherheitspuffer in Prozent",
- "maximum": 50,
- "minimum": 0,
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / schichtdauer_stundenAdded value: +{
+ "default": 8,
+ "description": "Dauer einer Schicht in Stunden",
+ "maximum": 24,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / ausfallfaktorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "1 / (1 − Ausfallquote)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / bedarfOhneAusfallAdded value: +{
+ "description": "VZÄ vor Ausfallfaktor",
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / bedarfProJahrRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Personen-Schichten pro Jahr",
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / besetzungsstundenProJahrAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Jährlich zu besetzende Stunden",
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / fteEmpfohlen / descriptionPrevious value: -"Inkl. Puffer, aufgerundet"New value: +"VZÄ inkl. Ausfallfaktor, aufgerundet"Output schema / properties / fteMinRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Rechnerisches Minimum (gerundet)",
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / fteMinRohRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Ungerundet, für Deckungsgrad",
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / fteRohAdded value: +{
+ "description": "VZÄ inkl. Ausfallfaktor, ungerundet",
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / nettoArbeitstageProVzJahrAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Planbare Arbeitstage je VZÄ (ohne Krankheit)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / nettoSchichtenProVzJahrRemoved value: -{
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / nettostundenProVzJahrAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Netto-Jahresarbeitszeit je VZÄ in Stunden",
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "schichtenProTag",
- "betriebstageProJahr",
- "bedarfProJahr",
- "nettoSchichtenProVzJahr",
- "fteMin",
- "fteMinRoh",
- "fteEmpfohlen",
- "deckungsstufe"
-]New value: +[
+ "schichtenProTag",
+ "betriebstageProJahr",
+ "besetzungsstundenProJahr",
+ "nettoArbeitstageProVzJahr",
+ "nettostundenProVzJahr",
+ "bedarfOhneAusfall",
+ "ausfallfaktor",
+ "fteRoh",
+ "fteEmpfohlen",
+ "deckungsstufe"
+]brueckentagebrueckentage_jahresvergleichcalculate_bridge_dayscalculate_care_staffing_pebemcalculate_net_working_timecalculate_shift_staffingcompare_bridge_day_yearsget_vigotime_infonettoarbeitszeitpersonalbedarf_pflege_pebempersonalbedarf_schichtbetriebvigotime_infobrueckentage1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "besteEffizienz": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "maxFreieTage": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "vorschlaege": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "anlass": {
+ "description": "Zugrunde liegender Feiertag",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "anzahlUrlaubstage": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "bis": {
+ "description": "ISO-Datum letzter freier Tag",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "effizienz": {
+ "description": "Freie Tage ÷ Urlaubstage",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "freieTageAmStueck": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "urlaubstage": {
+ "description": "Einzusetzende Urlaubstage (ISO)",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "von": {
+ "description": "ISO-Datum erster freier Tag",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "von",
+ "bis",
+ "urlaubstage",
+ "anzahlUrlaubstage",
+ "freieTageAmStueck",
+ "effizienz",
+ "anlass"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "vorschlaege",
+ "besteEffizienz",
+ "maxFreieTage"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}brueckentage_jahresvergleich1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "jahre": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "aufWochenende": {
+ "description": "Feiertage auf dem Wochenende (verschenkt)",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "benoetigteUrlaubstage": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "brueckenChancen": {
+ "description": "Feiertage auf Di–Do",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "feiertageGesamt": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "hebel": {
+ "description": "Freie Tage ÷ eingesetzte Urlaubstage",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "maxFreieTage": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "score": {
+ "description": "Offengelegte Formel, s. Tool-Beschreibung",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "year": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "year",
+ "maxFreieTage",
+ "benoetigteUrlaubstage",
+ "hebel",
+ "brueckenChancen",
+ "aufWochenende",
+ "feiertageGesamt",
+ "score"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "jahre"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}nettoarbeitszeit1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "ausfallSummeAt": {
+ "description": "Ausfalltage gesamt (Urlaub+Krank+Fortbildung+Feiertage)",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "ausfallquoteProzent": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "bruttoarbeitstage": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "nettoarbeitstage": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "nettoquoteProzent": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "nettostundenProKraft": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "nettostundenTeam": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "bruttoarbeitstage",
+ "ausfallSummeAt",
+ "nettoarbeitstage",
+ "ausfallquoteProzent",
+ "nettoquoteProzent",
+ "nettostundenProKraft",
+ "nettostundenTeam"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}personalbedarf_pflege_pebem1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "gesamtBewohner": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "vzaeGesamt": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "vzaeProQualifikation": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "description": "VZÄ je Qualifikationsniveau (Fachkraft, Hilfskraft mit/ohne Ausbildung)",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "gesamtBewohner",
+ "vzaeProQualifikation",
+ "vzaeGesamt"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}personalbedarf_schichtbetrieb1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "bedarfProJahr": {
+ "description": "Personen-Schichten pro Jahr",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "betriebstageProJahr": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "deckungsstufe": {
+ "enum": [
+ "knapp",
+ "normal",
+ "komfortabel"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "fteEmpfohlen": {
+ "description": "Inkl. Puffer, aufgerundet",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "fteMin": {
+ "description": "Rechnerisches Minimum (gerundet)",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "fteMinRoh": {
+ "description": "Ungerundet, für Deckungsgrad",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "nettoSchichtenProVzJahr": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "schichtenProTag": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schichtenProTag",
+ "betriebstageProJahr",
+ "bedarfProJahr",
+ "nettoSchichtenProVzJahr",
+ "fteMin",
+ "fteMinRoh",
+ "fteEmpfohlen",
+ "deckungsstufe"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}vigotime_info1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "anbieter": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "links": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": "Wichtige vigotime-URLs",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "produkt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "produkt_mcp": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "beschreibung": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "url",
+ "beschreibung"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "zielgruppen": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "produkt",
+ "zielgruppen",
+ "links",
+ "produkt_mcp",
+ "anbieter"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}brueckentagebrueckentage_jahresvergleichnettoarbeitszeitpersonalbedarf_pflege_pebempersonalbedarf_schichtbetriebvigotime_infoClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Free calculators as MCP tools: finance, taxes, health, units, dates. Search, fetch & compute.
90+ pure finance calculators: loans, investing, bonds, options, tax. Stateless, stores nothing.
Business days, meeting overlap and recurrence expansion, deterministic. 3 of 5 tools free.
Public holiday data for 30+ countries. Check holidays, working days and calendars via AI assistants.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct calculations, but calculate_bridge_days and compare_bridge_day_years overlap in domain and could be confused by an agent looking for Brückentage results. The other tools are distinct enough, though calculate_net_working_time and calculate_shift_staffing share related inputs.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, with calculate_ for computations, compare_ for comparison, and get_ for information. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic verbs.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a focused HR/workforce planning calculator server. Each tool serves a distinct calculation or informational purpose without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the apparent domain well: bridge day optimization, year comparison, working time calculation, shift staffing, care staffing, and product information. There are no obvious missing operations for the advertised calculator scope.
