Sri Lanka Payslip
Server Details
Source-backed Sri Lanka payslip tools for APIT/PAYE, EPF, ETF, stamp duty, and net pay.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- Buddhima-JD3/sri-lanka-salary-calculator
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculation, reference data, and checklist. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools use snake_case with consistent 'sri_lanka' prefix and verb_noun pattern (calculate, get). Naming is predictable.
Three tools is slightly on the low side but appropriate for a focused domain like Sri Lankan payslip processing. No unnecessary tools.
The set covers the core needs: calculation, reference data, and a checklist. Minor gaps like tool for updating assumptions or exporting results are acceptable.
Available Tools
3 toolscalculate_sri_lanka_payslipCalculate a Sri Lanka payslipARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Estimate 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 |
Output Schema
| 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by listing specific outputs (APIT/PAYE, EPF, etc.) and clarifying it's an estimate. No contradictions 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?
Single sentence of about 20 words, front-loaded with the key action 'Estimate monthly APIT/PAYE...' and lists all components efficiently. No superfluous wording.
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?
Given the tool has only 3 parameters with full schema coverage, output schema exists, and annotations are rich, the description adequately explains what the tool does. It covers the calculation context (Sri Lanka, regular primary employment). Could mention assumptions or limitations, but not necessary for completeness.
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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., grossSalary is described as 'Gross monthly employment income' in schema and 'monthly' in description). 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?
Description clearly states it estimates monthly APIT/PAYE, EPF, ETF, stamp duty, net pay, and employer cost for regular primary employment in Sri Lanka. The verb 'Estimate' is specific, and the resource is a payslip. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are reference and checklist.
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?
Specifies the use case as 'regular primary employment in Sri Lanka', giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. Siblings are named but no guidance on when to use them versus this tool.
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 referenceARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return the maintained APIT, EPF, ETF, and stamp-duty assumptions with official Sri Lankan sources and scope limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about official sources and scope limits, which goes beyond annotations and helps agents understand the data's authority and constraints.
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?
A single concise sentence with no wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
Given zero parameters and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what is returned and the authoritative nature, though it could mention read-only behavior (already implied by annotations).
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?
There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description explains what the tool returns, adding meaningful context beyond the empty schema.
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 the tool returns maintained assumptions (APIT, EPF, ETF, stamp-duty) with official sources and scope limits. It is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_sri_lanka_payslip and get_sri_lanka_payslip_checklist.
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 provides reference values for payroll calculations but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.
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 checklistARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return the fields and checks needed to prepare or review a Sri Lankan employee payslip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| sources | Yes | |
| earnings | Yes | |
| guideUrl | Yes | |
| evidenceNote | Yes | |
| generatorUrl | Yes | |
| identityAndPeriod | Yes | |
| employeeDeductions | Yes | |
| verificationChecks | Yes | |
| employerContributions | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent; description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'fields and checks', which is adequate but not enriched.
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, no redundancy, but very brief; could be more structured but 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?
Given no parameters and an output schema, description is functional but omits details on output format or usage context with siblings.
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 schema coverage is 100%; baseline 3 applies as description adds no param-specific value beyond trivial.
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 the tool returns fields and checks for Sri Lankan payslip preparation/review, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_sri_lanka_payslip.
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 usage via its purpose but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!