Source-backed Sri Lanka payslip tools for APIT/PAYE, EPF, ETF, stamp duty, and net pay.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculation, reference data, and checklist. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (calculate_..., get_...), with clear and descriptive naming.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its narrow domain of Sri Lanka payslip processing. Each tool is essential.
The set covers calculation, reference assumptions, and a checklist, which are sufficient for basic payslip tasks. Minor gaps like handling edge cases or multiple employments are absent but within the stated scope.
calculate_sri_lanka_payslipCalculate a Sri Lanka payslipAEstimate monthly APIT/PAYE, employee and employer EPF, ETF, stamp duty, net pay, and employer cost for regular primary employment in Sri Lanka.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grossSalary | Yes | Gross monthly employment income in Sri Lankan rupees | |
| epfEtfEarningsBase | No | EPF/ETF-eligible monthly earnings; defaults to gross salary | |
| otherEmployeeDeductions | No | Optional non-statutory employee deductions, such as a loan repayment |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| apit | Yes | |
| netPay | Yes | |
| caution | Yes | |
| sources | Yes | |
| currency | Yes | |
| stampDuty | Yes | |
| employeeEpf | Yes | |
| employerEpf | Yes | |
| employerEtf | Yes | |
| grossSalary | Yes | |
| employerCost | Yes | |
| methodologyUrl | Yes | |
| sourceTableYear | Yes | |
| yearOfAssessment | Yes | |
| epfEtfEarningsBase | Yes | |
| payslipGeneratorUrl | Yes | |
| otherEmployeeDeductions | Yes | |
| totalEmployeeDeductions | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by listing the specific calculated outputs (APIT/PAYE, EPF, ETF, etc.) and confirming the estimation nature, consistent with annotations.
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, well-formed sentence of 25 words that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists key outputs without any extraneous content.
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?
The description covers the scope (regular primary employment in Sri Lanka) and lists all major components. Given the existence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, it is complete enough for a calculation 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% with descriptive parameter comments. The description provides a high-level context but does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already states for each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies the verb 'Estimate' and the resource: monthly APIT/PAYE, EPF, ETF, stamp duty, net pay, and employer cost. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (reference and checklist) by focusing on computation of payslip components.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_sri_lanka_payroll_referenceGet the Sri Lanka payroll referenceAReturn the maintained APIT, EPF, ETF, and stamp-duty assumptions with official Sri Lankan sources and scope limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | |
| period | Yes | |
| sources | Yes | |
| citation | Yes | |
| currency | Yes | |
| openApiUrl | Yes | |
| effectiveFrom | Yes | |
| excludedCases | Yes | |
| methodologyUrl | Yes | |
| provenanceNote | Yes | |
| employeeEpfRate | Yes | |
| employerEpfRate | Yes | |
| employerEtfRate | Yes | |
| sourceTableYear | Yes | |
| yearOfAssessment | Yes | |
| monthlyApitRelief | Yes | |
| stampDutyThreshold | Yes | |
| stampDutyAboveThreshold | Yes | |
| machineReadableMethodologyUrl | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the specific data returned (APIT, EPF, ETF, stamp-duty) and the inclusion of official sources and scope limits, which confirm safe querying behavior.
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, well-formed sentence that conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary action.
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, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It clarifies the content and provenance of the data, which is sufficient for the agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain param semantics, but it still adds meaning by enumerating what the tool returns, which enhances the agent's understanding of the output without parameters.
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 specifies exactly what the tool returns (APIT, EPF, ETF, stamp-duty assumptions) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_sri_lanka_payslip and get_sri_lanka_payslip_checklist by focusing on reference data rather than calculations or checklists.
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 the tool should be used when reference assumptions are needed but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling names provide some context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_sri_lanka_payslip_checklistGet a Sri Lanka payslip checklistAReturn the fields and checks needed to prepare or review a Sri Lankan employee payslip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| sources | Yes | |
| earnings | Yes | |
| guideUrl | Yes | |
| evidenceNote | Yes | |
| generatorUrl | Yes | |
| identityAndPeriod | Yes | |
| employeeDeductions | Yes | |
| verificationChecks | Yes | |
| employerContributions | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is clear. Description adds context that the tool returns fields and checks, which is consistent and adds value beyond bare annotations.
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?
Single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the main action and resource. No extraneous content; every word earns its place.
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?
With no parameters, output schema available, and annotations covering behavior, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose clearly, and no further information is needed.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info; schema coverage is 100% trivially. No missing semantics.
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 clearly states it returns fields and checks for a Sri Lankan payslip, using a specific verb ('return') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings: 'calculate_sri_lanka_payslip' for computation, 'get_sri_lanka_payroll_reference' for reference data.
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?
Description implies use when preparing or reviewing a payslip, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative sibling tools. Guidance is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.