overtime_pay_calculatorOvertime Pay Calculator (Time-and-a-Half) — Calculate overtime pay at time-and-a-half or a custom rate. Enter your hourly wage plus regular, overtime, and double-time hours for weekly and annual gross.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hourlyRate | Yes | ||
| regularHours | Yes | ||
| overtimeHours | Yes | ||
| doubletimeHours | Yes | ||
| overtimeMultiplier | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions time-and-a-half and custom rate inputs, and weekly/annual gross output, but does not clarify whether taxes/deductions are excluded, how the multiplier is applied, or whether the output is only overtime pay or total gross. This ambiguity is a significant transparency gap.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by an instructional sentence. The only minor issue is that the opening phrase 'Overtime Pay Calculator (Time-and-a-Half)' exactly repeats the title, which is redundant and wastes a few words. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., weekly and annual gross amounts, breakdown by pay type). It only mentions 'weekly and annual gross' without specifying the return format or any assumptions/limitations. The 5-parameter complexity also demands more detail about how inputs combine, which is missing.
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 description mentions 'hourly wage' (hourlyRate), 'regular, overtime, and double-time hours' (regularHours, overtimeHours, doubletimeHours), and 'custom rate' (overtimeMultiplier), which adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names in the schema. However, it does not explain the calculation formula or how the multiplier interacts with overtime hours. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.
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 overtime pay at time-and-a-half or a custom rate, and specifies inputs and output scope (weekly and annual gross). This provides a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from other pay-related calculators like take_home_pay or salary_to_hourly, so it lacks differentiation from siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply explains what it does and what to enter. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many calculators occupy overlapping conceptual spaces, such as 'ai_roi_calculator' vs 'ai_automation_payback_calculator' and 'llm_self_host_vs_api_calculator' vs 'ai_build_vs_buy_calculator'. The boundaries between debt payoff, savings goal, and drawdown tools are also fuzzy, making it easy for an agent to select the wrong tool despite detailed descriptions.
Every tool follows the same <topic>_calculator pattern with lowercase snake_case, making the naming highly predictable and consistent. Even acronyms and numbers fit the pattern, so there is no mixing of conventions.
122 tools is an extreme number for a single MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a severe mismatch. The tools span unrelated domains like AI costs, pet food, concrete, pizza dough, and turkey cooking, creating an unfocused kitchen-sink surface that overwhelms an agent's selection process.
The set covers many common calculator categories such as finance, construction, health, and AI costs, but several staple calculators are missing (e.g., BMI, tip, discount, simple interest, currency conversion). The AI cost cluster is over-saturated while other everyday calculations are absent, leaving minor but noticeable gaps.