Geo-Parity

Working hours and paid parental leave, by country

compare_working_time

Read-onlyIdempotent

Two questions in one. Given countries (two or more ISO alpha-2 codes), returns side by side: mean weekly hours actually worked per employed person (ILOSTAT, newest year from 2023), average annual hours actually worked (OECD, members only), and the paid leave the law gives mothers and fathers in calendar days with who pays (World Bank Women, Business and the Law 2026). Without countries, ranks the 41-country spine by one metric — weeklyHours, annualHours, maternityDays or paternityDays; sort=fewest inverts. A country missing a metric lacks the key, and is dropped from a ranking rather than scored zero. OECD's annual-hours series is NOT comparable across countries, by OECD's own statement — the wording travels with every response that carries the figure. Weekly hours average full- and part-time workers together. Leave is what the law provides, not take-up; a legal score below 1 marks a partial provision. Statutory minimum ANNUAL leave is deliberately absent: no citable structured source exists.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Ranking direction. Ignored when `countries` is given.	most
`limit`	No	Return at most this many countries in a ranking.
`metric`	No	Ranking metric. Ignored when `countries` is given.	weeklyHours
`countries`	No	Comma-separated ISO alpha-2 codes, two or more (e.g. "DE,US,TH"). Omit to get a ranking instead.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`rows`	No
`metric`	No
`caveats`	No
`attribution`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "countries": "DE,US,TH"
+  }
+]
```
AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description goes further with genuinely useful behavioral context: data sources and vintage (ILOSTAT 2023+, OECD members only, World Bank WBL 2026), the OECD non-comparability caveat, drop-from-ranking semantics, legal-score-below-1 meaning, and an explicit statement about a deliberately absent metric.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the two-mode framing before details. Length is justified by the surface area, though the closing sentence about absent statutory annual leave is a nice-to-know caveat rather than an invocation-critical fact.

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?

With an output schema present, return formatting need not be described, and the description covers both invocation modes, edge cases, and data caveats. Required-parameter count is zero, so the optional-mode switching is fully explained.

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, but the description earns above that by explaining what each metric represents, that `sort=fewest` inverts, and that `sort`/`metric` are ignored when `countries` is given, adding meaning beyond the enum labels.

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 dual-mode verb+resource: side-by-side comparison of weekly hours, annual hours, and paid parental leave for named countries, or a ranked list without them. An agent can distinguish this from near siblings like compare_public_holidays or employment_rules from the description alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly splits the two call modes: pass `countries` for a side-by-side, omit it to rank the 41-country spine by a named metric with `sort` inverting direction. It also states defaults implicitly (metric weeklyHours) and the exclusion behavior (a country missing a metric is dropped, not scored zero), leaving little to inference.

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

All Geo-Parity tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?