calculateRun the Statutory redundancy calculator calculator: Weekly pay used (capped at €600); Weeks of pay due (2 per year + 1); Statutory redundancy lump sum. Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | No | Years of continuous service | |
| weeklyPay | No | Gross weekly pay |
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 full behavioral burden and does a solid job: it discloses the €600 weekly pay cap, the '2 per year + 1' weeks formula, the lump-sum output, and the default-fallback behavior. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 with no filler and front-loads the action. The minor typo 'calculator calculator' is a small blemish but does not hurt comprehension.
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 simple 2-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers the essential computation rules, the cap, and fallback behavior. It doesn't specify the exact output structure, but that is less critical for a calculator 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining the weekly-pay cap applied to weeklyPay and the formula relating years to weeks of pay, which the schema alone does not convey.
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 a concrete action ('Run the calculator') and specifies the resource ('Statutory redundancy calculator') along with the core calculations it produces. It is clear enough for an agent to know the tool performs redundancy lump-sum calculations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 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?
The description implies its use case: when a statutory redundancy amount needs to be computed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, such as calculator_describe for mere explanation rather than calculation.
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 clearly distinct role: running the calculator, describing the calculator, explaining the enquiry process, providing the enquiry field schema, and submitting the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.
Names are readable and consistently snake_case, but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun-first, and enquiry_fields is noun-noun. This is not chaotic, but it lacks a single predictable convention.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused statutory redundancy calculator with an enquiry submission workflow. Each tool covers a distinct part of the user journey without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the full lifecycle: computing a redundancy payment, understanding the calculator, understanding the enquiry process, retrieving the exact form fields, and submitting with consent. There are no obvious missing operations that would strand an agent.