Skip to main content
Glama

retraite_surcote_parentale

Read-onlyIdempotent

Surcote parentale (+1,25 %/trim, max 5 %) — Majoration de pension pour les parents au taux plein un an avant l'âge légal (art. L351-1-2-1). 1,25 % par trimestre travaillé dans la fenêtre [âge légal − 1 an ; âge légal), plafonné à 4 trimestres (5 %). Conditions : âge légal ≥ 63 ans, durée requise atteinte, ≥ 1 trimestre de majoration enfant (MDA). Gère le gel LFSS 2026. (sources: CSS art. L351-1-2-1, D351-1-4 ; CSS art. L351-4/L351-4-1/L351-5 (MDA) ; Service-Public F16336)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ageNo
rfrNo
partsNo
age_legalNoAlternative à la date de naissance : âge légal en années.
nb_enfantsNoÀ défaut de mda_parentale : ≥ 1 enfant → hypothèse de MDA.
mda_parentaleNo≥ 1 trimestre de MDA pour enfant (maternité/adoption/éducation).
date_naissanceNoDate de naissance (YYYY-MM-DD) — détermine l'âge légal + le gel LFSS 2026.
trimestres_acquisNo
trimestres_requisNo
pension_brute_annuelleNoPension de base brute annuelle — chiffre le gain en €.
trimestres_cotises_fenetreNoTrimestres cotisés dans la fenêtre [âge légal − 1 ; âge légal) — sinon estimé.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, it discloses the exact rate, the cap at 4 quarters/5%, eligibility conditions, and that it handles the LFSS 2026 freeze. It does not describe the return format or behavior when eligibility fails, but annotations already cover safety.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but front-loaded with the formula and cap, followed by conditions and legal sources. Legal citations add useful authority but slightly lengthen it; still, each sentence contributes significant information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers formula, eligibility, and LFSS 2026 handling, but it does not specify the return value/format or the role of fiscal parameters such as rfr and parts. Some param semantics are left to the schema, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description gives meaning to key parameters: the 1.25% per quarter in the window maps to trimestres_cotises_fenetre, 'gain en €' relates to pension_brute_annuelle, and the MDA condition ties to mda_parentale and nb_enfants. However, parameters like rfr, parts, age, trimestres_acquis, and trimestres_requis are not explained, leaving a gap at 55% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool computes the 'surcote parentale' pension increase for parents at full-rate one year before legal age, with formula and cap. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling retraite_* tools, but the specific term and legal reference make its purpose distinct.

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?

It provides explicit eligibility conditions: legal age >= 63, required duration reached, and at least one MDA quarter, so an agent can decide when this tool applies. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the stated conditions are clear context.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.