Skip to main content
Glama

日本の給与・社会保険・労働法

by io.github.kishida-devil

通勤手当の非課税限度額

commuting_allowance_exemption

Works out how much of a commuting allowance escapes income tax, and states the amount that still counts as remuneration for social insurance.

These are two different bases, and that asymmetry is the part people get wrong. Social insurance counts a commuting allowance in full — it is 報酬 under 健康保険法第3条第5項 regardless of the tax treatment — while income tax is charged only on what exceeds the ceiling. So a 15,000 yen allowance on a 300,000 yen salary makes the standard-remuneration basis 315,000 and the taxable pay 300,000. Never answer with a single figure that is meant to serve both.

The ceiling is 150,000 a month for public transport. For a car or bicycle it is set by one-way distance, with nothing exempt under two kilometres, and up to 5,000 more a month when the employee pays for parking. Using both adds them together, still capped at 150,000.

Do not answer this from memory. The table moved twice in twelve months: a cabinet order promulgated 19 November 2025 raised every band over ten kilometres and applied retroactively to allowances payable from 1 April 2025, and 1 April 2026 added four bands above 65km along with the parking addition. Figures learnt before those dates are wrong, and wrong in a direction that under-states the exempt amount. Call with no arguments to read the current table and both revisions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fareNoReasonable fare or toll paid alongside a vehicle commute.
amountNoThe commuting allowance actually paid, yen per month. Omit to get the whole table.
parkingNoMonthly parking cost the employee bears. Added to the distance band, up to 5,000. Needs distance_km.
distance_kmNoOne-way distance for a commute by car or bicycle. Under 2km nothing is exempt.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the income-tax versus social-insurance asymmetry, gives a concrete salary example, sets the 150,000 cap, explains distance and parking rules, and warns against memory-based answers because of two revisions—even stating the direction of the likely error.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then builds through the key asymmetry before addressing limits, distance rules, and revision warnings. Each sentence carries necessary information, including the concrete example and the explicit instruction not to rely on memory.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a four-parameter tool with no output schema and substantial legal complexity, the description is complete: it covers both calculation bases, the ceiling, distance thresholds, parking, retroactivity, and how to read the current table. Nothing needed to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Although the schema documents all four parameters, the description adds critical semantics: nothing is exempt under 2 km, parking adds up to 5,000 to the distance band, public-transport and vehicle calculations combine and are capped at 150,000, and omitting the amount reads the whole table. This materially improves correct invocation.

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?

The description opens with a precise verb-resource pair: it works out how much of a commuting allowance escapes income tax and states the amount still counted for social insurance. It further distinguishes itself from generic payroll/tax tools by stressing the two different bases and warning that a single figure must never serve both.

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 gives clear context for use: computing the income-tax exemption and social-insurance inclusion of a commuting allowance, including when to call with no arguments to read the current table and both revisions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is unambiguous.

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

All 日本の給与・社会保険・労働法 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct, well-defined jobs—payroll calculations, revision judgments, eligibility checks, and data lookups are clearly separated. The main remaining risk is among the standard-remuneration judgment tools and the batch/singleton pairs, but their descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

There is a reasonably recognizable pattern with calculate_, judge_, check_, get_, and validate_ groups. However, several noun-phrase names (business_days, consumption_tax, national_insurance, commuting_allowance_exemption) and overlapping verb choices (decide_ vs judge_ vs check_) prevent a fully consistent verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 30 tools, the surface is materially larger than the 3–15 range that keeps an agent's selection burden low. Batch variants and three separate standard-remuneration revision tools add complexity, and although the domain is broad, the count feels heavy for an assistant to choose from confidently.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows are well covered: monthly pay, bonuses, overtime, standard-remuneration determination, year-end adjustment, resident tax, leave, worker classification, and invoice validation. Gaps exist around statutory benefit payments such as sickness or maternity allowances and retirement-specific processing, but most payroll and social insurance tasks can be completed without dead ends.

Resources