calculateRun the Employer payroll cost calculator calculator: Employer CPP (5.95% between $3,500 and $74,600); Employer CPP2 (4% between $74,600 and $85,000); Employer EI (1.4 x 1.63% up to $68,900); True annual cost. Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extras | No | Other annual costs (benefits, equipment, insurance) | |
| salary | No | Gross annual salary |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides concrete calculation details: CPP rates and brackets, CPP2 thresholds, EI multiplier and cap, and 'true annual cost'. It also discloses default-value fallback behavior, which is useful beyond the schema. It does not describe the output format, but for a calculation tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 a single sentence that conveys the essential calculation inputs and fallback behavior without excessive verbosity. It loses a point for the redundant phrase 'calculator calculator', which is a minor clarity defect but not a structural problem.
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?
For a tool with two optional parameters and no annotations, the description provides the main calculation rules, thresholds, and default behavior, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It does not explicitly state what the return value looks like or define 'true annual cost' precisely, but the core usage context is present.
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 schema already documents both parameters (salary and extras) with descriptions and defaults, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond restating the default fallback behavior, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's action ('Run') and resource ('Employer payroll cost calculator'), and specifies exactly what it computes: Employer CPP, CPP2, EI, and true annual cost. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculator_describe or submit_enquiry, even if not explicitly named.
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 implies the tool should be used when employer payroll costs need to be calculated, and mentions that missing inputs fall back to defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like calculator_describe or submit_enquiry, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative routing.
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.
Each tool has a clear single responsibility: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the submission flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry does the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap between the calculator cluster and the enquiry cluster.
Names are readable and all snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-first/noun-noun. The two describe tools are consistent with each other, but the set as a whole lacks a single predictable verb_noun convention.
Five tools is well-scoped for a server that provides a payroll calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool covers a distinct function, and there is no bloat or token-heavy sprawl.
The calculator surface has both run and self-description, and the enquiry surface has process description, field schema, and a two-step submit flow with explicit consent handling. No critical lifecycle gap is obvious for this narrow domain.