Skip to main content
Glama

Child Care Subsidy

child_care_subsidy

Works out the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) for each child and the gap fee the family pays, as the paycalculator.com.au childcare calculator does, with the 2026-27 income thresholds and hourly rate caps. Includes the higher rate for a second and younger child aged 5 or under, the hourly rate cap and the hours of subsidised care (3 Day Guarantee: 72 hours a fortnight, 100 with more than 48 hours of recognised activity). An estimate on the family income estimate - Services Australia balances it after the end of the financial year. CCS only, not Additional Child Care Subsidy.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "familyIncome": "<familyIncome>",
      "children": "<children>"
    },
    "name": "child_care_subsidy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
childrenYesEach child in care.
withholdingNo% of the subsidy withheld each fortnight. Defaults to 5%, as Services Australia does.
familyIncomeYesCombined family adjusted taxable income for the year (the person and their partner). Use details.adjustedTaxableIncome from calculate_pay, plus the partner's, when available.
activityHoursPerFortnightNoRecognised activity of the parent with the lower hours (work, study, training, volunteering, looking for work), hours a fortnight. More than 48 gives 100 hours of subsidised care, otherwise 72. Assumed more than 48 when not given.
firstNationsChildOrExemptionNoAn Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child, or an exemption (e.g. a grandparent carer) - 100 hours of subsidised care.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesYesFees above the cap, hours over the subsidised hours, the higher rate limit and the withholding - pass these on.
sourceYes
totalsYes
childrenYes
hoursReasonYes
withholdingYes% withheld.
familyIncomeYes
subsidisedHoursPerFortnightYesHours of subsidised care per child each fortnight.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does substantial work: it discloses that results are estimates, that Services Australia balances them after the financial year, the hours-of-care rules (72 vs 100 hours), and the higher rate for a second child aged 5 or under. It does not mention precision, rounding, or what happens at edge cases such as income above the cap, but the core behavioural profile is well covered.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the outcome (subsidy and gap fee) before the policy detail, and every clause carries information. The single dense paragraph is efficient but packs many policy specifics into unbroken prose, making it slightly harder to parse than a short list of scoping facts would be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the estimate caveat, the exclusions, and the subsidy-rate rules the agent needs to interpret results. The main residual gap is the absence of a routing statement telling the agent when this tool is the right call versus the pay-calculation sibling.

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 schema already documents familyIncome, activityHoursPerFortnight, withholding and per-child fields with defaults and sourcing hints. The description adds policy context (the 72/100-hour rule, the second-child rate) but does not explain argument formats or defaults beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: works out the Child Care Subsidy per child plus the family's gap fee. It scopes the domain precisely (2026-27 thresholds, hourly rate caps, 3 Day Guarantee) and explicitly excludes Additional Child Care Subsidy, so the agent can separate it from tax/income siblings like calculate_pay.

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?

Clear about what the output represents (an estimate reconciled by Services Australia at year end) and explicitly excludes ACCS. However, it never names a sibling tool or states the condition under which the agent should call this rather than, say, calculate_pay — that linkage appears only inside the familyIncome parameter description in the schema, not in the tool description itself.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources