HelloTime MCP

statutory_rates

Return statutory payroll-rate entries with rate, ceiling, slab, authority, and verification status. India block (PF / EPS / EDLI / PF admin / ESI / Professional Tax by state / TDS slabs) is internally-reviewed against EPFO / ESIC / state notifications. Australia and US entries are public-source-unreviewed. Filter by country, scheme, category, state, party, verification, or id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Return a single rate by id (e.g. "in-pf-employee", "au-super-guarantee-fy2526").
`party`	No	Filter by who pays the contribution.
`state`	No	For India professional tax, the state name (e.g. "Maharashtra", "Karnataka", "Tamil Nadu"). Case-insensitive substring match.
`scheme`	No	Match a scheme key like "PF", "ESI", "PT", "TDS", "SuperGuarantee", "FICA-SS", "FICA-Medicare", "FUTA", "401k", "MedicareLevy". Case-insensitive substring match.
`country`	No	Filter to one country. IN is the comprehensively-verified block; AU and US are public-source-unreviewed.
`category`	No	Filter by statutory category (social-security, health-insurance, income-tax, professional-tax, pension, unemployment, state-payroll-tax).
`verification`	No	Filter by verification status. Use "verified" to restrict to internally-reviewed rates (IN PF/ESI/PT).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the verification status discrepancy between countries and mentions the verification filter. This is valuable behavioral insight for a read-only tool, though it stops short of detailing pagination or return structure.

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?

Four sentences, each providing necessary information: purpose, data quality caveats, and filter options. No filler or repetition; efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the return contents (rate, ceiling, etc.), data provenance differences, and filters. Without an output schema, it gives a solid overview, but does not fully specify return format or list all possible schemes, leaving some ambiguity.

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 100%, so the description adds little beyond listing filter names. The schema already explains each parameter including the 'IN' country verification nuance, making the description redundant in this dimension.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns statutory payroll-rate entries with specific fields (rate, ceiling, slab, authority, verification status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which cover features, plans, or country support, not payroll rates.

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?

Provides useful context by explaining that India rates are internally-reviewed while AU/US are not, and lists available filters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool is clearly the sole option for statutory rates.

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

All HelloTime MCP 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource: features, plans, competitors, country support, payroll engines, statutory rates, payment methods, and a free-text search across all of them. There is no overlap in purpose; even feature_search complements the list tools by handling ad-hoc queries.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent: three use a 'list_' prefix (list_competitors, list_features, list_plans), while the rest are noun phrases like 'country_support', 'feature_search', 'local_payment_methods', 'payroll_capabilities', and 'statutory_rates'. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, making names less predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped number for a product information server covering features, plans, competitors, countries, payroll, payments, and rates. Each tool has a clear role and the count is within the ideal range.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all major categories one would expect for the HelloTime product domain: features, plans, competitor positioning, country-specific support, payroll engines, statutory rates, and payment methods. The feature_search tool further fills gaps by enabling cross-category queries, leaving no obvious dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?