calculateRun the Employer CPP and EI cost, 2026 calculator: CPP contributory earnings; Your CPP contribution, at 5.95%; Earnings in the CPP2 band; Your CPP2 contribution, at 4%. Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salary | No | Annual salary | |
| cppStatus | No | CPP position of the employee | yes |
| employees | No | How many employees at this 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful formula context: the 5.95% CPP rate, the 4% CPP2 rate, the CPP2 band concept, and fallback-to-defaults behavior for missing inputs. It leaves some ambiguity around employer versus employee perspective and does not clarify return formatting, but the core calculation behavior is disclosed.
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, front-loaded with the imperative verb, and uses a structured colon list to convey the calculation components. There is no filler or redundant explanation beyond briefly restating the title, and every sentence carries information.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior. It covers CPP and CPP2 outputs but never explicitly mentions EI despite 'EI cost' in the title, and it does not describe the returned result shape or how cppStatus=no interacts with the calculation. Useful defaults and rates are present, but the omission of EI is a meaningful completeness gap.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds formula-level context about CPP and CPP2 contributions, but it does not add meaning to the individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The fallback-to-defaults statement repeats schema default behavior rather than new parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run the Employer CPP and EI cost, 2026 calculator'. It lists concrete calculator outputs such as CPP contributory earnings, the 5.95% CPP contribution, the CPP2 band, and the 4% CPP2 contribution, making the intent clear and distinguishing this from sibling describe-tools.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, or submit_enquiry. The description does not provide conditions, exclusions, or context to help the agent decide between calculate and the sibling tools.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct roles: run the calculator, describe the calculator, describe the enquiry process, list enquiry fields, and submit the enquiry. The only mild ambiguity is between enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, though their descriptions do separate high-level process from field schema.
The names mix conventions: 'submit_enquiry' and 'calculate' use verb-first style, while 'calculator_describe', 'enquiry_describe', and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first. The names are still readable and intuitive, but the pattern is not consistent.
Five tools is well-scoped for this narrow calculator-plus-enquiry workflow. Each tool has a distinct purpose and the count feels neither bloated nor thin.
The tool set covers the full workflow: understanding the calculator, running it, understanding the enquiry flow, retrieving required fields, and submitting the enquiry with confirmation handling. There are no obvious dead ends for an agent helping a user complete this process.