Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

New York State Workers' Compensation Hub

by com.thecompdesk
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

NY attorney fee split with prior counsel

calculate_fee_split
Read-onlyIdempotent

Divides an attorney fee between the current attorney and one or two prior counsel the way every Comp Desk tile does: each prior counsel gets the dollar amount given, the current attorney the rest, worked in whole cents; prior amounts above the fee are flagged as over-allocated (nothing can be requested). Also gives the OC-400.1 amount: the current attorney's share rounded down to the nearest $5. The fee the Board approves can differ. 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.

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": {
      "total_fee": "<total_fee>",
      "prior_counsel_fees": "<prior_counsel_fees>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_fee_split"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
total_feeYesThe total attorney fee, in dollars (for example the fee a calculator returned).
prior_counsel_feesYesDollar amount of the fee apportioned to each prior counsel (one or two).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: whole-cent arithmetic, over-allocation flagging, the OC-400.1 round-down-to-$5 rule, a 'missing' status for absent inputs, and disclosure that Board-approved fees can differ. It also states the output shape (figures, steps with rule and engine function, notice).

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 core rule is front-loaded, but the engine claim is padded and repeated ('the way every Comp Desk tile does', 'Computes with The Comp Desk calc-core, the same engine as the app and the Pro Workspace; it never estimates'). Several sentences could be tightened without losing information.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: inputs, arithmetic rule, edge case behavior, output contents, and jurisdiction limit. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 relational meaning the schema lacks: each prior amount is taken as given and the current attorney receives the remainder, with prior amounts exceeding the total flagged as over-allocated. That clarifies how the two parameters interact rather than merely restating them.

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 verb and resource ('divides an attorney fee between the current attorney and one or two prior counsel') and adds the secondary OC-400.1 computation. This is clearly distinct from neighboring split tools such as calculate_section_32_split and calculate_apportionment, and an agent can pick it 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: New York State only, fee split with prior counsel, and the over-allocation case where nothing can be requested. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a sibling split tool (e.g. section 32 or apportionment), so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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