Skip to main content
Glama

日本の給与・社会保険・労働法

by io.github.kishida-devil

産休・育休終了時改定(1等級差で改定)

judge_leave_end_revision

A separate route with a lower bar than 随時改定, and the one people forget. ONE grade of movement is enough, and fixed pay need not have changed at all — which matters because returning to shorter hours usually cuts pay without changing any rate, so 随時改定 would not fire and the employee would keep overpaying on their pre-leave grade.

Only one of the three months has to reach the day threshold, and months that miss it are excluded from the average. The employee must apply; an employer cannot file it alone. It is unavailable if another leave begins the day after this one ends.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes産前産後休業終了時改定 or 育児休業等終了時改定.
monthsYesThree months starting with the one containing the day AFTER the leave ended.
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.
current_remunerationYes報酬月額 before the leave.
next_leave_starts_immediatelyNoTrue if another leave began the day after this one ended, which bars the application.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that fixed pay need not change, that only one of three months must meet the threshold, that missed months are excluded from the average, that the employee must apply, and that the tool is unavailable when another leave starts immediately after. These are substantive behavioral details beyond what the tool name or schema alone would convey.

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 efficient: the core differentiator from 随時改定 is front-loaded, and each rule earns its place. The phrase 'the one people forget' is mildly non-essential but reinforces usage context. Overall it is well-structured for its informational load.

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?

The description and schema together cover invocation conditions and parameter meanings well. However, there is no output schema and the description never states what the tool returns — whether it is a boolean decision, a revised grade, or a calculation result. For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, that is a meaningful completeness gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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 adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining that months missing the threshold are excluded from the average and that fixed-pay changes are irrelevant. This enriches the semantics of the 'months' and 'current_remuneration' parameters rather than merely restating them.

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 identifies the resource: leave-end revision (産休・育休終了時改定) and its defining condition — one grade of movement is enough. It distinguishes this route from 随時改定, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like judge_monthly_revision. However, it never explicitly states the action verb such as 'judges' or 'determines whether,' relying on the tool name and title for that.

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 a concrete trigger: returning to shorter hours cuts pay without changing a rate, so 随時改定 would not fire — this tool is the lower-bar alternative. It also states the one-of-three-month rule and the next-leave exclusion. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tool or saying 'use this instead of X,' but the comparison to 随時改定 is clear enough.

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