The Comp Desk Builder

NY average weekly wage (§14)

calculate_aww

Read-onlyIdempotent

The average weekly wage from earnings in the year before the accident: earnings_method "steady" (WCL §14(1)–(2): earnings ÷ days worked × 200/260/300 for a 4-/5-/6-day week, 365 for 7) or "irregular" for new, seasonal or irregular work (§14(3)–(4): earnings ÷ weeks worked). With a date of accident it also gives the weekly rate. New York State only. Computes with The Comp Desk calc-core (the engine behind the app, the website calculators and the Pro Workspace); it never estimates. If an input is missing it returns status "missing" with every input still needed and calculates nothing. Returns the figures, the rate year used, the formulas with their citations (each flagged with whether it has been attorney-reviewed), and the not-legal-advice notice. Needs your builder key. Same engine the Pro Workspace tiles call through CD.Calc, so a figure here matches the app to the cent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "earnings_method": "<earnings_method>",
      "total_earnings": "<total_earnings>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_aww"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days_worked`	No	steady: days actually worked in the period.
`weeks_worked`	No	irregular: weeks actually worked.
`days_per_week`	No	steady: days normally worked each week (1–4 use the 200 multiplier).
`total_earnings`	Yes	Total gross earnings in the period, in dollars.
`earnings_method`	Yes
`date_of_accident`	No	Optional: adds the weekly rate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: it never estimates, it short-circuits to status "missing" listing every needed input and computes nothing, it returns formulas with citations each flagged for attorney review, plus a not-legal-advice notice. It also discloses the builder-key auth requirement and determinism versus the app. Only the exact response shape is left unstated, which the absent output schema would otherwise demand.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The statutory content is front-loaded and dense with real information, but the engine provenance is stated twice — "The Comp Desk calc-core (the engine behind the app, the website calculators and the Pro Workspace)" and then "Same engine the Pro Workspace tiles call through CD.Calc, so a figure here matches the app to the cent" — which is one sentence too many in a single undivided block.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does so well: figures, rate year, cited formulas with review flags, and the legal disclaimer. Auth and the missing-input path are covered; a six-parameter statutory calculator is otherwise adequately specified, with only the sibling boundary left open.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by attaching the statutory multipliers to the method branches (200/260/300 for 4-/5-/6-day weeks, 365 for seven days; earnings ÷ weeks worked for irregular), which explains why days_worked and weeks_worked are mutually exclusive by method. It does not clarify units or bounds for total_earnings beyond what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — computing the NY average weekly wage from pre-accident earnings — and enumerates both method branches (steady under §14(1)–(2), irregular under §14(3)–(4)) with their formulas. It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings such as calculate_aww_with_adjustments or calculate_weekly_rate, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives real selection context: "New York State only," steady vs. irregular method choice keyed to the worker's pattern ("new, seasonal or irregular work"), and the optional date_of_accident that adds the weekly rate. What is missing is any statement about when to prefer this over the sibling adjustment/rate calculators.

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

All The Comp Desk Builder 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?