EOR Scope

EOR, own entity or contractor cost

compare_structures

Read-only

Use this when the user is deciding between hiring through an Employer of Record, setting up their own entity, or engaging contractors in a country and wants the cost of each over 1 to 5 years (e.g. "from how many employees should we open an entity in Poland instead of using an EOR?"). Uses the fees and entity costs the user enters plus the statutory employer charges, and gives the headcount at which entity costs and EOR fees cross. Costs only: it does not say whether a contractor arrangement is lawful. Data snapshot 2026-10-22. Cost comparison, not legal or tax advice.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`years`	No	Horizon in years
`salary`	No	Gross salary, a year unless salary_period is "month". Omit to use the country's example salary.
`country`	Yes	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code ("DE") or country name ("Germany")
`headcount`	No	Number of employees
`assumptions`	No	Override an adjustable assumption the country declares, e.g. {"basic_share_of_gross": 0.6}. See `assumptions` in an employer_cost answer.
`salary_period`	No	Whether the salary is a year (default) or a month. Pass a monthly salary as the user gives it, with "month": the statutory number of monthly payments of the country (13th, 14th month) is applied, see salary_basis in the answer.	year
`salary_currency`	No	Currency of `salary`: USD, or the local currency of the country	USD
`entity_setup_usd`	No	One-off entity set-up cost in USD, from the user
`entity_annual_usd`	No	Yearly entity running cost in USD (payroll, accounting, filings), from the user
`eor_fee_usd_month`	Yes	The EOR fee the user has been quoted, in USD per employee per month, as the user gives it
`payments_per_year`	No	With salary_period "month" only: the total number of monthly salaries the contract pays in a year, statutory ones included (e.g. 14). Omit to use the statutory number of the country.
`contractor_fee_usd_month`	No	A contractor platform fee, if the user has one, in USD per employee per month, as the user gives it

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	Yes
`salary`	Yes
`caveats`	Yes
`country`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`break_even`	Yes
`your_inputs`	Yes
`salary_basis`	No
`employer_cost`	Yes
`per_month_usd`	Yes
`cumulative_usd`	Yes
`over_horizon_usd`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuine context: the method (user-entered fees plus statutory employer charges), the computed output (crossover headcount), the data snapshot date 2026-10-22, and a clear 'cost comparison, not legal or tax advice' boundary. It does not discuss currency/rate assumptions or how the statutory charges are sourced, leaving a little undisclosed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the trigger scenario, then the method, then the scope exclusions and data vintage. Five sentences, all load-bearing — the example query and the 'costs only' caveat each prevent a distinct class of misuse.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 12 parameters, a nested assumptions object, annotations, and an output schema, the description carries its share: it states the horizon, the method, the crossover output, the cost-only boundary, and data freshness. It does not explain the assumptions override keys or the USD-vs-local currency interaction, though the schema points to the employer_cost answer for the former.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented, yet the description adds framing that explains why the inputs exist: entity setup and annual costs and EOR/contractor fees come 'from the user' as quoted, while statutory employer charges are filled in by the tool. That mapping of user-supplied vs computed inputs is exactly the semantics an agent needs when deciding what to ask the user for.

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 comparison (EOR vs own entity vs contractor) with a defined output — total cost over a 1-5 year horizon and the headcount crossover point. The example question ('from how many employees should we open an entity in Poland instead of using an EOR?') makes the tool's distinct role unmistakable against siblings like employer_cost or compare_countries.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user is deciding between hiring through an EOR, setting up their own entity, or engaging contractors') and scopes the horizon to 1-5 years. It adds a clear exclusion (cost only, not lawfulness or legal/tax advice) but never names a sibling tool such as employer_cost as the alternative for a single-country cost breakdown, so routing depends on inference.

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

All EOR Scope tools Inspect

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.