Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

New York State Workers' Compensation Hub

by com.thecompdesk
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

NY third-party lien cost share (Burns/Kelly)

calculate_burns_lien
Read-onlyIdempotent

The carrier's equitable share of litigation costs on its workers' compensation lien when a third-party action recovers (WCL §29; Kelly; Burns): gross lien (indemnity + medical), the cost-share rate (attorney fee + disbursements ÷ gross recovery), the carrier's share and the net to the plaintiff. For a motor-vehicle case, give the no-fault threshold that comes off the lien first. 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.

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": {
      "gross_recovery": "<gross_recovery>",
      "indemnity_lien": "<indemnity_lien>",
      "medical_lien": "<medical_lien>",
      "attorney_fee": "<attorney_fee>",
      "disbursements": "<disbursements>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_burns_lien"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attorney_feeYesThird-party attorney fee, in dollars.
medical_lienYesMedical paid (lien), in dollars.
disbursementsYesLitigation disbursements, in dollars.
gross_recoveryYesGross third-party recovery, in dollars.
indemnity_lienYesIndemnity paid (lien), in dollars.
motor_vehicle_thresholdNoOptional, motor-vehicle cases: the amount that comes off the lien first, in dollars.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the calculator never estimates, a missing input yields status "missing" listing every required input and computes nothing, and the response includes the rate year, formula citations with attorney-review flags, and a not-legal-advice notice. That is exactly the failure-mode and output-shape disclosure an agent needs before calling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the purpose, then scope, engine provenance, missing-input behavior, and returns — a logical order with no filler sentences. The parenthetical about calc-core powering the app, website and Pro Workspace is mildly promotional and could be trimmed, but it does carry the deterministic-engine point.

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

Completeness5/5

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-value burden and does so: figures, rate year used, cited formulas with review flags, and the legal disclaimer, plus the "missing" status path. Combined with a fully documented 6-parameter schema, nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by defining the composite concepts: gross lien equals indemnity plus medical, and the cost-share rate is (attorney fee + disbursements) ÷ gross recovery. It also clarifies that motor_vehicle_threshold is deducted from the lien first, which is more than the schema's bare wording.

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: the carrier's equitable share of litigation costs on a workers' comp lien in a third-party action, citing WCL §29, Kelly and Burns, and enumerates the outputs (cost-share rate, carrier's share, net to plaintiff). That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_fee_split or calculate_apportionment without opening any 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 a clear triggering context (third-party action recovering against a comp lien) and a conditional usage rule — supply motor_vehicle_threshold for motor-vehicle cases so no-fault comes off the lien first — plus a hard scope limit, 'New York State only.' It stops short of naming an alternative tool for adjacent calculations, so no explicit when-not/use-instead routing.

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

All New York State Workers' Compensation Hub toolsInspect
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