calculateRun the Malta salary calculator calculator: Income tax for the year; Employee social security (Class 1); Net annual pay; Net pay per month. Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| born | No | Date of birth | post62 |
| rates | No | Tax computation | single |
| salary | No | Gross annual basic 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a meaningful runtime behavior—missing inputs fall back to documented defaults—and lists the computed output categories. It does not discuss error handling or side effects, but for an idempotent 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 compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by a clear list of outputs and a short defaults statement. It earns its place, though the redundancy in 'calculator calculator' and the minor typo keep it from being perfect.
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 that there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values by listing the four output categories. It also notes the default fallback behavior, and the input schema fully documents the three optional parameters. Minor gaps such as currency and the semantics of the born cohort are not addressed, but the description is otherwise complete enough for this simple tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter (born, rates, salary) already documented and rates having an enum. The tool description only reiterates the default-fallback behavior already visible in the schema and adds no new parameter-specific meaning, so the 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 action ('Run the Malta salary calculator') and enumerates the exact outputs: income tax, employee social security, net annual pay, and net pay per month. This makes it identifiable as the calculation tool rather than the sibling describe/enquiry tools, though it does not explicitly name or compare against those 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?
Usage is implied: if an agent needs Malta salary/tax/net pay calculations, this tool is the natural match, and 'Run' signals execution. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no alternative routing such as 'use calculator_describe for details'.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: calculate performs the salary computation, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the submission process, enquiry_fields lists the input fields, and submit_enquiry handles the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
The names are readable but follow mixed conventions: action-style names like calculate and submit_enquiry sit alongside noun_verb names like calculator_describe and enquiry_describe, plus the noun_noun enquiry_fields. The pattern is not chaotic, but it is not consistently verb_noun across the set.
Five tools is well-scoped for a site centered on a salary calculator and a related enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat or sense of missing helper tools.
The set covers the calculator domain and the enquiry workflow end to end: calculation, calculator documentation, enquiry explanation, field discovery, and two-step submission with confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the apparent purpose.