Almanack

add_to_date

Move a date by years, months, days and ticks. They are applied in that fixed order, which matters: a month then a day is not always the same landing as a day then a month. Adding days is always exact. policy decides what happens when the day does not exist in the target month: 'clamp' (default) moves to that month's last day, 'reject' refuses with an error, 'spill' carries the excess into the following month. Adding months to an intercalary date is refused, because those days sit between months; add days instead. 'ticks' moves within the day for a calendar that divides its day, carrying whole days as they fall. USE 'steps' FOR MORE THAN ONE MOVE: each step gives its own years, months, days and ticks, and its own date or the shared one, so a base date and a list of offsets is a single call rather than one per offset. Only the date is shared: a step states its own move in full, so a step naming no months moves by no months whatever the call around it says. Answers up to 1000 in one call, in the order given, as {count, ok, results}. Prefer this over one call per item: the spec travels once instead of once each.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`date`	No
`days`	No
`time`	No
`steps`	No
`ticks`	No
`years`	No
`months`	No
`policy`	No	clamp
`calendar`	Yes
`on_error`	No	fail

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed9 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / date / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

addedInput schema / properties / date / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / date / default
```
Added value: +null
```
removedInput schema / properties / date / type
```
Removed value: -"object"
```

addedInput schema / properties / on_error

Added value: +{
+  "default": "fail",
+  "title": "On Error",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / steps

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Steps"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / ticks

Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "title": "Ticks",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / time

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Time"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "calendar",
-  "date"
-]New value: +[
+  "calendar"
+]

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and delivers: fixed application order, exactness of days, policy behaviors for clamp/reject/spill, refusal for intercalary months, tick carrying, step isolation semantics, a 1000-answer cap, and the return shape. It is exceptionally transparent about edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long, but every sentence adds behavioral or policy context. The critical semantics—ordering, policy, steps, batching—are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it states batching limits, return shape, ordering semantics, and failure modes. It falls slightly short only because calendar/time/on_error are not fully specified and sibling-tool routing is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains years, months, days, ticks, policy, and steps, but it never defines the required 'calendar' parameter, the 'time' parameter, or the 'on_error' parameter and its possible values. These are meaningful gaps for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a date by years, months, days and ticks.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and gives enough detail to distinguish it from calendar formatting, parsing, and interval tools in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: use 'steps' for multiple moves and prefer this over one call per item. It also advises using days instead of months for intercalary dates. It does not explicitly contrast add_to_date with sibling tools, but the within-tool routing and exclusions are strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Almanack tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct date/calendar operation: arithmetic, conversion, weekday lookup, period membership, moon phase, daylight, event queries, formatting/parsing, and two different rendering outputs. Even superficially similar tools (calendar_weekday vs nth_weekday_of_month, calendar_events vs calendar_periods) ask clearly different questions that the descriptions make unambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_first or noun_query pattern, but there is a mix: add_to_date, convert_date, and parse_calendar_date are imperative, while moon_phases, sun_daylight, and calendar_events are noun phrases describing what they return. The calendar_ prefix on three tools and consistent rendering parse/format pairs help readability, so this is a minor deviation, not chaos.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools sits at the upper bound of the ideal range for a focused domain toolkit. Every tool addresses a genuine calendar use case (define, convert, query, render, validate, generate), and none feels redundant or extraneous.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full lifecycle of working with a custom calendar: validation before use, conversion between representations, date arithmetic and intervals, weekday and period queries, recurring events and daylight/moon data, formatting/parsing, and visual rendering. No obvious dead ends or missing operations come to mind for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?