calculateRun the Irish statutory notice calculator calculator: Statutory minimum notice (weeks); Notice that applies (weeks); Pay for the notice period; Calendar days. Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| party | No | Who is giving the notice? | employer |
| service | No | Continuous service | |
| weeklyPay | No | Gross weekly pay | |
| contractWeeks | No | Notice in your contract |
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 does disclose fallback-to-defaults behavior and enumerates the output categories, which is useful. However, it doesn't state that this is a pure calculation with no side effects, nor does it explain any calculation assumptions or limitations.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's name and lists outputs and the fallback behavior. The redundant 'calculator calculator' is a clarity defect that prevents a 5, but overall the description is concise and to the point.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's list of output names helps, but the return format and units are unspecified. For example, 'service' lacks an explicit unit (years vs months), 'party' possible values beyond the default are not documented, and edge cases are not mentioned. For a 4-parameter optional-input calculator, the description is adequate but not fully complete.
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% — every parameter has a description, default, and valid range. The tool description adds the fallback-to-defaults rule but no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter documentation.
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 names the action ('Run') and resource ('Irish statutory notice calculator') and lists the four computed outputs, which makes the tool's purpose identifiable. However, the phrase 'calculator calculator' is redundant, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling describe tools like calculator_describe.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus calculator_describe or the enquiry tools. The only usage-related note is that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, which is a behavioral detail rather than a selection criterion.
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.
calculate and submit_enquiry are clearly distinct in purpose. enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields both relate to the enquiry flow, but one provides plain-language behavior and consent context while the other gives the structured field schema, so the distinction is mostly clear.
Tool names are inconsistent: calculate is a bare verb, submit_enquiry is verb_noun, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first. There is no shared convention across the set, making the naming feel fragmented.
Four tools for two core activities plus supporting documentation tools is a reasonable, well-scoped count. However, the stated tool count is five while only four tool definitions were provided, which introduces a small inconsistency.
The enquiry side is well supported with describe, fields, and a two-step submit flow. The calculator side is thinner: only calculate exists, with no equivalent describe or fields tool to expose input keys, defaults, and assumptions, making that half of the domain less discoverable.