take-home-pay-calcNet salary from gross with full tax and insurance breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | Age | |
| dependents | No | Number of dependents | |
| annualIncome | Yes | Annual income in JPY | |
| employmentType | No | Employment type | employee |
| spouseDependentDeduction | No | Spouse dependent deduction |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / ageAdded value: +{
+ "default": 30,
+ "description": "Age",
+ "maximum": 100,
+ "minimum": 15,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / annualIncomeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Annual income in JPY",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / dependentsAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Number of dependents",
+ "maximum": 10,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / employmentTypeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "employee",
+ "description": "Employment type",
+ "enum": [
+ "employee",
+ "freelance"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / spouseDependentDeductionAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Spouse dependent deduction",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "annualIncome"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only promises a 'full tax and insurance breakdown' without specifying which taxes, whether it's an estimate, or any assumptions (e.g., Japanese tax system). It doesn't mention output format or potential limitations. This is inadequate for a financial calculator.
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, succinct sentence. It front-loads the core transformation ('Net salary from gross') and then adds the breakdown promise. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, currency context (JPY is in schema but not described), how employment type changes the logic, or what 'full tax and insurance' includes. It leaves many gaps for a tool with this complexity.
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 descriptions cover all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by implying 'gross' maps to annualIncome, but it doesn't explain how age, dependents, employmentType, or spouseDependentDeduction affect the calculation. It neither complements nor contradict the 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 computes net salary from gross income and provides a tax/insurance breakdown. It implies a calculation action and identifies the resource (take-home pay). However, it lacks an explicit verb, and it doesn't differentiate itself from the many sibling tax calculators (e.g., withholding-tax-calc, resident-tax-calc).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like freelance-tax-calc and salary-vs-freelance could overlap, but the description gives no exclusions or preferred scenarios. The only context is 'from gross', which is too vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as bg-remover, bg-remover-pro, pro-matting, and takumi all performing background removal, and upscaler/upscaler-pro being redundant. With 202 tools, an agent may easily select the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools use a consistent kebab-case format with descriptive names like pdf-compress, image-resizer, and tax-return-calc. Exceptions like 'takumi', 'pro-matting', and '-pro' suffixes (bg-remover-pro, upscaler-pro) are minor deviations relative to the total.
202 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. The sheer volume makes it unwieldy for an agent to efficiently navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set provides extensive coverage across many domains, including PDF operations (20+ tools), image editing, financial calculations, e-commerce fee estimation, and YouTube utilities. Minor gaps exist in cross-tool integration, but the breadth is highly comprehensive for the apparent purpose.