Skip to main content
Glama

日本の給与・社会保険・労働法

by io.github.kishida-devil

年次有給休暇 — 付与日数と年5日の時季指定義務

judge_annual_leave

Works out how many days of paid leave someone has been granted, and whether the employer still owes the five days it must direct.

労働基準法第39条 grants ten working days once six months of service are complete and attendance reaches eighty per cent of all working days, then adds one, two, four, six, eight and ten days in the years that follow. The ceiling everyone quotes as twenty is not in the article: it is the ten of the first grant plus the ten added from the sixth year.

Someone under thirty hours a week working four days or fewer takes a smaller table from 施行規則第24条の3. Thirty hours is where it turns — at or above it the ordinary grant applies no matter how few days are worked, and treating such a person as part-time under-grants them. Ask for both the weekly days and the weekly hours; one without the other cannot settle it.

Where ten or more days are granted, 第39条第7項 requires the employer to fix the timing of five of them within the year, and days the employee took of their own accord count toward it. A grant lapses two years after it is made (第115条), so one year carries over.

The attendance figure is a question about the workplace: leave for a work injury, maternity, childcare and paid leave already taken all count as attendance. Ask for a rate that has been worked out rather than dividing days present by days in the year. Without one the tool reports the eighty per cent test as not judged rather than assuming it passed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoDate to judge against, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today.
hired_onYesDate of hire, YYYY-MM-DD. Grants fall six months later, then annually.
days_takenNoDays already taken in the current year, counted against the five the employer must direct.
annual_daysNo一年間の所定労働日数, in place of weekly_days.
weekly_daysNo週所定労働日数.
weekly_hoursNo週所定労働時間. Thirty or more takes the ordinary grant whatever the day count.
attendance_rateNoAttendance as a fraction of all working days, 0 to 1. Eighty per cent or more grants.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly: it explains the legal thresholds, the part-time switch at 30 hours, carryover and lapse rules, and the fallback when attendance_rate is omitted — reporting the 80% test as not judged rather than assuming it passed.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose, legal rule, part-time exception, obligation/carryover, and attendance handling each get a focused paragraph. No sentence is filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states the two result dimensions clearly: granted days and whether the five-day obligation remains. It also covers the main input-relationship pitfalls, missing-data behavior, and legal context needed to call the tool correctly for a complex 7-parameter judgment.

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%, but the description greatly enriches parameter meaning: weekly_hours at or above 30 overrides day count, weekly_days and weekly_hours must be judged as a pair, attendance_rate is evaluated against 0.8, and days_taken count against the five-day obligation. This goes well beyond the baseline for a fully documented 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 opening sentence specifies two concrete outputs: how many paid-leave days were granted and whether the employer still owes the five days it must direct. This is a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming its legal scope.

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 explicit invocation guidance: ask for weekly days and weekly hours together because neither alone settles the part-time determination, and request attendance as a pre-calculated rate rather than a raw day count. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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