Skip to main content
Glama

日本の給与・社会保険・労働法

by io.github.kishida-devil

定時決定(算定基礎届) — 4〜6月の報酬から

decide_regular_remuneration

The yearly redetermination of standard remuneration, effective each September through the following August.

Months below the payment-basis-day threshold drop OUT of the average entirely — they are not counted as zero, which is the usual mistake. If no month qualifies, the previous grade carries over by 保険者算定, except for 短時間就労者, who have an intermediate step at 15 days that exists nowhere else in the scheme and not in 随時改定.

Pass acquired_month to also learn how long a 資格取得時決定 stays in force.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNoThe determination year; its 1 July is the reference date. Defaults to the current year.
monthsYesApril, May and June as "remuneration:payment_basis_days" — e.g. "350000:30,352000:31,349000:30".
left_onNoLast day worked, YYYY-MM-DD. Gone before 1 July means not employed on the reference date.
acquired_onNoDate cover began, YYYY-MM-DD. Someone insured between 1 June and 1 July is outside the annual determination (健康保険法第41条).
worker_typeNogeneral = 一般の被保険者 (17-day threshold). part_time_short_hours = 短時間就労者, works shorter hours but meets the three-quarters test (17 days, with a 15-day fallback that exists ONLY in 定時決定). short_time_insured = 短時間労働者 at a 特定適用事業所 (11 days). Defaults to general.
acquired_monthNoMonth of enrolment, 1-12. Returns how long the 資格取得時決定 applies.
revision_monthNoMonth a 随時改定 takes effect. July, August or September displaces the annual determination; any other month does not.
previous_remunerationNoThe prior 報酬月額, so the response can name the grade that carries over if no month qualifies.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining that sub-threshold months drop out entirely rather than counting as zero, that carry-over follows 保険者算定, and that short-time workers have a unique 15-day intermediate step. It does not describe the overall return structure, but the schema partially covers some outputs.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and edge cases in a compact second paragraph. Every sentence adds meaningful content, though the density of Japanese terms may make it slightly harder to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the most important traps and exceptions. The lack of an output schema is partly mitigated by the schema's rich parameter descriptions, which mention response behavior such as naming the carried-over grade and returning how long a determination applies.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds only a small hint about acquired_month and does not need to repeat parameter details already fully documented in the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as the yearly redetermination of standard remuneration, effective September through August. It distinguishes itself from related concepts like 随時改定 by noting that the 15-day fallback exists only in 定時決定.

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?

The description gives clear context on when this annual determination applies and even warns about a common mistake with payment-basis-day thresholds. It implies the distinction from monthly revision rules, but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as judge_monthly_revision.

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