Skip to main content
Glama

日本の給与・社会保険・労働法

by io.github.kishida-devil

国民年金・国民健康保険 — 被用者保険に入らない人の側

national_insurance

For anyone outside employee cover: the self-employed, freelancers, people between jobs.

Use this instead of calculate_payslip when the person is not an employee. Running a freelancer through the payslip returns a figure computed under a different scheme entirely, with nothing in the answer to say so. If you are unsure which side someone is on, judge_worker_type decides it.

The two schemes differ in how far they can be answered, and the difference matters. 国民年金法第87条 makes the pension contribution a statutory amount times a revision rate set each year by cabinet order — the same figure everywhere in the country, flat regardless of income. That comes back as a number.

国民健康保険法第76条 leaves the health contribution to each municipality, collected from the head of the household, and states no figure at all. Around 1,700 municipalities each set their own income-based, per-person and per-household components and their own ceilings. There is no national number to give. Do not estimate one, and do not present a figure from one city as though it were general — tell the person to ask their own municipality, which is what the response says.

Exemptions, deferrals and the student special case all change what is actually paid, and whether they apply turns on income and household. Those are not judged here.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoDate to judge, YYYY-MM-DD. Outside the year carried it refuses rather than quoting a stale figure.
monthsNoMonths to total. The contribution is flat, so this multiplies.
supplementaryNoAdd the optional 付加保険料 of 400 a month, which raises the basic old-age pension later.

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, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the pension contribution comes back as a number, while the health insurance contribution has no national figure due to municipal variation. It also sets expectations about what is not handled, such as exemptions and deferrals.

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 longer than minimal, but each paragraph contributes meaningful routing or behavioral information. It front-loads the target audience and the key alternative tool, and the legal context helps an agent understand why results may be partial.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and rich legal nuance, the description covers what results to expect for pension versus health insurance, when to use it, and what it does not judge. It could be more explicit about the exact return shape, but it gives sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful context about flat pension contributions and municipal health variation, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's audience (self-employed, freelancers, people between jobs) and its subject matter (国民年金 and 国民健康保険). It distinguishes itself from calculate_payslip, but it never states the core action directly as a verb like 'calculate' or 'estimate' — the function is implied through phrases like 'comes back as a number'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use this tool instead of calculate_payslip when the person is not an employee, and points to judge_worker_type when unsure. It also states that exemptions, deferrals, and special cases are not judged here, giving clear exclusion criteria.

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