Skip to main content
Glama

台灣勞健保勞退試算

by io.github.supra126

計算台灣勞健保勞退

calculate_payroll
Read-onlyIdempotent

計算台灣某月薪資的勞保（含就保）、健保、勞退、職災各方（員工/雇主/政府）負擔。支援不同身份別、眷屬、自提、部分工時。結果僅供參考，以勞保局、健保署核發之繳款單為準，不構成法律或會計建議。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNo年度（西元，如 2026）。省略則使用最新可用年度；可先用 list_years 查可用年度。
identityNo身份別（預設 category1）：category1=本國勞工或外籍配偶；migrantGeneral=一般移工（勞保僅普通事故 11.5%、無就保/勞退）；migrantDomestic=家事移工（僅健保＋職災，職災費率請以 occupationalRate 傳 0.0018）。不適用的險種回傳 0。
partTimeNo是否為部分工時：true 時未達基本工資者勞保/健保對到官方低級距（職保仍歸第 1 級）。預設 false。
roundingNo進位策略：round=四捨五入（預設）、ceil=無條件進位、aggregate-then-round=合計後分配（政府方吸收進位差）。
dependentsNo健保眷屬人數（計費上限 3 口），預設 0。
monthlySalaryYes月薪資總額（經常性薪資），新臺幣元／月。
occupationalRateNo職災行業別費率，小數比例（如 0.0021 表 0.21%；家事移工 0.0018），範圍 [0, 0.02)。省略則用該年度平均費率。
employmentInsuranceNo是否參加就業保險（勞保費率 12.5% 或 11.5%），預設 true。一般移工/家事移工一律視為不參加。
pensionSelfContributionNo勞工自願提繳率，小數（0~0.06，如 0.06 表 6%），預設 0。

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaYes
bracketsYes
employeeYes
employerYes
governmentYes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds value by stating results are for reference only and do not constitute legal or accounting advice, setting appropriate expectations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, clear paragraph that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and supported features. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting the disclaimer (which is useful but verbose).

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 (9 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description adequately covers the core functionality and supported scenarios. It mentions identity types, dependents, voluntary contributions, and part-time work. The disclaimer about reference-only is a good addition. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage.

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 documentation coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide; it merely summarizes the tool's features. No additional semantics are provided that would raise the score.

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 states it calculates labor insurance, health insurance, pension, and occupational accident burdens for a Taiwan monthly salary. It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_old_age_pension and calculate_income_tax_withholding by focusing on monthly payroll contributions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is for monthly payroll calculations and supports various identity types and part-time work, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context of sibling tools provides some guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit usage directives.

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

All 台灣勞健保勞退試算 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct calculation scenario (e.g., payroll, pension types, supplementary premiums, income tax) with no functional overlap. The descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'calculate_' prefix for computational tools and 'list_years' for enumeration, using snake_case throughout. The verb_noun pattern is uniform.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools cover the core aspects of Taiwan's labor insurance, health insurance, pension, and tax calculations without redundancy. The count is well-matched to the domain's complexity.

Completeness5/5

The set includes all major calculations required for payroll and benefits: employer/employee burdens, multiple pension options, supplementary premiums, tax withholding, prorated scenarios, and a year reference tool. No obvious gaps.

Resources