Skip to main content
Glama

Home employment end of contract — notice, calendar, indemnity (CCN 3239)

calculate_home_employment_end_of_contract
Read-only

End of a home-employment contract in France (particulier employeur ↔ salarié: cleaner, carer, garde d'enfant à domicile, assistant maternel): notice, dates, indemnity, documents, for either party. · Fin de contrat d'emploi à domicile (particulier employeur ↔ salarié, assistant maternel) : préavis, calendrier, indemnité, documents, pour l'employeur comme pour le salarié. — Notice duration by seniority (art. 162.4.1 dismissal / 162.6 resignation / 120 assistant maternel), earliest entretien préalable date (art. 161.1.1.1 — 4th jour ouvrable counted from the day after presentation; the Code du travail dismissal procedure does not apply to the particulier employeur), notice end computed from the FIRST PRESENTATION of the letter, dismissal indemnity (art. 163.1: 1/4 month per year up to 10 years then 1/3, from 8 months, best of the 12- or 3-month average) or assistant-maternel withdrawal indemnity (art. 121.1: 1/80 of gross salaries, from 9 months), rupture conventionnelle windows (blocked for assistants maternels, CASF L.423-2), paid-leave reminder, last CESU/Pajemploi declaration date, 6-month settlement contest window, and the end-of-contract documents with who produces and who receives each. Same numbers whichever party calls. Applies the Convention collective IDCC 3239 (verified on Légifrance 2026). Deterministic formulas — no AI, no assessment of any person or motif.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partyYesWho is asking: 'employer' (particulier employeur) or 'employee' (salarié / assistant maternel). Wording only — the figures are identical for both.
regimeYes'home_employee' (salarié du particulier employeur: cleaner, carer, housekeeper…), 'garde_domicile' (child care at the family's home — same rules as home_employee), 'assistant_maternel' (childminder at her own home, agréée — or use calculate_assistant_maternel_end_of_contract).
as_of_dateNoSeniority reference date when the letter has not been sent yet (planning). Ignored when notification_date is given.
end_reasonYesClosed category matching the letter: 'employer_termination' (licenciement / retrait d'enfant), 'resignation' (démission), 'mutual_termination' (rupture conventionnelle — not available for assistants maternels).
start_dateYesContract start (ISO).
hourly_grossNoGross hourly rate in € (home employee / garde à domicile).
weekly_hoursNoWeekly hours (mensualisation = hourly × hours × 52 / 12).
am_monthly_grossNoAssistant maternel: monthly gross (mensualisation), EXCLUDING indemnités d'entretien, repas, kilométriques.
convocation_dateNoEmployer termination only: first presentation of the convocation à l'entretien préalable → earliest entretien date (CCN art. 161.1.1.1).
notification_dateNoISO date of the FIRST PRESENTATION (or handover) of the letter that ends the contract — the notice runs from it. For a rupture conventionnelle: the signature date. Omit for durations only.
avg_3_months_grossNoOptional — average gross monthly pay over the last 3 months (the more favourable average is used).
serious_misconductNoThe letter states faute grave or faute lourde (a category chosen by the user — the tool does not assess it). Removes the notice and the indemnity by rule.
am_total_gross_paidNoAssistant maternel: optional total gross salaries paid since the start (art. 121.1 base). Defaults to mensualisation × complete months.
avg_12_months_grossNoOptional — average gross monthly pay over the last 12 months (art. 163.1 reference).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Though annotations already mark readOnlyHint true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: notice runs from the FIRST PRESENTATION, results are deterministic with no AI and no assessment of persons or motifs, and the same figures are returned whichever party calls. These details set correct expectations about the tool's limits and assumptions.

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?

The description is dense but well structured: it leads with purpose, then lists all legal topics in one high-information paragraph, and ends with verification and determinism notes. It is longer than average, and the bilingual opening repeats content, but the density is justified for a complex legal calculator and every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a highly complex legal computation with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It covers notice, indemnity, rupture conventionnelle restrictions, paid leave, CESU/Pajemploi declaration, contest window, beneficiary of documents, applicable law, and verification source. Important exclusions and behavioral constraints are also stated, leaving little ambiguity about what the agent should pose as inputs.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the legal formulas behind the parameters: dismissal indemnity (considered 1/4 month per year, then 1/3, from the 8th month, best of 12/3-month average), assistant-maternel indemnity (1/80 gross from the 9th month), and the earliest entretien préalable date calculation. It does not explicitly walk through all 14 parameter names, but functionally links the formulas to the relevant inputs.

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 clearly identifies the verb and resource: it calculates the end of a home-employment contract in France and enumerates the concrete deliverables: notice, dates, indemnity, and documents. It also narrows the scope to CCN 3239 and lists the relevant categories (cleaner, carer, garde d'enfant, assistant maternel), so it is easy to distinguish from salary, rent, and other calculators.

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 states clear applicable context: both parties, particular employer ↔ salaried employee, home employment under IDCC 3239, with specific mention that the general Code du travail dismissal procedure does not apply. It does not explicitly list alternatives in the prose, but the schema tells the user to use calculate_assistant_maternel_end_of_contract in one embedded paraphrase; the distinction is present in the tool definition.

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.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool is tied to a specific legal or payroll calculation, and the names clearly indicate their target: salary, rent revision, tenant notice, DPE restrictions, quasi-resident status, zone-tendue lookup, family allowances, and health insurance. Some overlap exists because rent revision and DPE checks both involve F/G rent freezes, and tenant notice relies on zone-tendue data, but descriptions keep boundaries clear.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern with a concise legal/domain object. The verbs vary by nature of action—calculate_, check_, compare_—but each is consistent and semantically meaningful.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped number for a specialist compliance server. Each tool handles a distinct calculation or legal lookup, and none feels redundant or purely decorative.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main rental-revision, tenant-notice, DPE-restriction, zone-tendue, and cross-border worker salary/benefit comparisons well. Minor gaps remain around related compliance details such as rental deposits, landlord-side termination, or deeper Swiss tax filing checks, but they are not fatal to the tool set’s stated purpose.

Resources