Skip to main content
Glama

ITC Prevailing Wage & Apprenticeship Guide

Is this pay compliant, and what does a shortfall cost?

check_prevailing_wage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares pay for one classification with the Davis-Bacon prevailing rate (basic hourly rate + fringe from the wage determination; look it up with lookup_wage_determination) and, if short, computes the IRS cure: the shortfall (x3 for intentional disregard), interest at the Federal short-term rate + 6 points, and the $5,000 per-worker penalty ($10,000 for intentional disregard), with the penalty waivers (corrected by the quarter deadline and either no more than 10% of pay periods short or no more than 5% short; or work under a qualifying project labor agreement). Cash plus bona fide fringe contributions together must reach base plus fringe (29 CFR 5.31).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hoursNoHours worked at this (short) pay: only the underpaid hours, to total the shortfall.
workersNoHow many laborers or mechanics were paid this way (the penalty is per worker).
cash_rate_paidYesCash wages paid ($/hour).
classificationNoThe work classification (e.g. Electrician), for the record.
wages_due_dateNoWhen the wages were due (YYYY-MM-DD): the server looks up that quarter’s Federal short-term rate (table through 2026-10-16) to show the interest rate.
year_wages_paidNoWhat the worker was actually paid for that year on the facility (defaults to the year’s required wages less the shortfall entered).
pay_periods_belowNoOf those, how many were paid below the prevailing rate.
pay_periods_totalNoPay periods the worker was employed on the facility in the calendar year (for the small-failure waiver).
required_base_rateYesThe determination’s basic hourly rate for the classification ($/hour).
year_required_wagesNoThe amount required to be paid to this worker for the calendar year (or the part of it) during which they worked on the facility: the 5% test in 1.45-7(c)(6)(i)(B) runs over the year, not over the underpaid hours alone.
fringe_paid_per_hourNoBona fide fringe benefit contributions per hour ($/hour): health, pension, insurance, vacation... not legally required benefits (29 CFR 5.29).
required_fringe_rateNoThe determination’s fringe benefit amount ($/hour); 0 if none.
intentional_disregardNotrue if the failure was knowing or willful.
federal_short_term_rate_pctNoOr give the Federal short-term rate (IRC 6621(b)) for the period yourself, in percent; the interest rate is that + 6 points.
corrected_by_quarter_deadlineNotrue if the back pay is made by the last day of the first month after the calendar quarter in which the failure occurred.
qualifying_project_labor_agreementNotrue if the work is under a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement for this project that meets 1.45-7(c)(6)(ii) and back pay is made before the credit is claimed (no penalty).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, yet the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: the multiplier for intentional disregard, the interest formula (Federal short-term rate + 6 points), the per-worker penalty amounts, the two waiver paths, and the governing regulation. This is well beyond the annotation bar.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and for a 16-parameter computational tool the length is justified. However, the bulk is delivered as one very dense run-on sentence, which is harder to parse than a short opening plus terse bullets.

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?

Given a complex 16-parameter tool, no output schema, and annotations that already cover safety, the description is complete: it explains what is compared, what is computed, the penalty/waiver logic, and the regulatory basis. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning by stating the substantive rule behind the parameters — cash plus bona fide fringe must together reach base plus fringe (29 CFR 5.31) — and by directing the agent to lookup_wage_determination to populate the required rates.

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 names a specific operation — comparing one classification's pay against the Davis-Bacon prevailing rate and computing the IRS cure for any shortfall. It explicitly routes the agent to the sibling lookup_wage_determination for the rate, so it is distinguishable from the other 'check_*' tools.

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?

Usage context is clear (a compliance check that also prices a shortfall) and it names lookup_wage_determination as the source for the required rate. It gives no exclusions or explicit routing against alternatives like check_daily_ratio or check_apprentice_hours, but the scenario it serves is unambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources