The Comp Desk Builder

NY benefit weeks between dates

calculate_benefit_weeks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Weeks between dates the way The Comp Desk's CCP / Award calculator counts them: both end dates count; a period that starts the day the previous one ended counts that day once; a period held in abeyance counts no weeks; weeks rounded down to none / tenth / whole. Returns per period the inclusive days, exact and rounded weeks, whether the shared boundary day was dropped, and the next day after the end. Dates only, no money. New York State only. Computes with The Comp Desk calc-core, the same engine as the app and the Pro Workspace; it never estimates. A missing input returns status "missing" and nothing is calculated. Returns the figures, the steps with the rule and engine function behind each, 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": {
      "periods": "<periods>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_benefit_weeks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`periods`	Yes
`weeks_rounding`	No	Optional; default none.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the builder-key auth requirement, the 'missing' status on absent input, deterministic non-estimating execution, and what the response contains (days, exact/rounded weeks, boundary-drop flag, next day). Some of this is promotional repetition about engine parity rather than added behavioral fact.

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?

Front-loaded with the core counting rules, which is good, but the description is bloated and self-repetitive: it describes the return payload twice and closes with marketing claims ('matches the app to the cent', 'same engine the Pro Workspace tiles call through CD.Calc') that do not help an agent decide or invoke.

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 burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly, plus error behavior, auth and scope for a two-parameter tool. It is essentially complete, with minor bloat rather than missing information.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate and does: it explains that both end dates are inclusive, how the shared boundary day is handled, that abeyance yields zero weeks, and the none/tenth/whole rounding semantics. It does not restate the YYYY-MM-DD format or the 24-period cap, but the schema covers those.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific computation (weeks between dates) plus the exact counting rules (both end dates count, boundary day counted once, abeyance counts no weeks, rounding modes), and explicitly scopes it away from siblings with 'Dates only, no money' and 'New York State only'. An agent can distinguish this from calculate_ccp_award or calculate_weekly_rate without opening the schema.

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 clear context for when this applies: NY-only date arithmetic, no monetary output, abeyance periods excluded, and rounding selectable. It does not name an alternative tool for callers who actually need money figures, relying on the implicit 'no money' exclusion, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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?