Skip to main content
Glama

Calculate.co.nz NZ Calculators

nz_redundancy_entitlement_calculator

Work out what is actually owed when a New Zealand role is made redundant.

Use for: 'what redundancy am I entitled to', 'redundancy pay NZ', 'made
redundant what do I get', 'is redundancy pay compulsory in New Zealand'.

START WITH THIS, BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST COMMON ERROR IN GENERAL ADVICE:
NEW ZEALAND HAS NO STATUTORY REDUNDANCY PAY. None. An employee is entitled
to redundancy compensation ONLY if their employment agreement provides for
it. This is the opposite of the UK and Australian position, and answers
written from overseas sources get it wrong. The default clause here is
"none" for that reason, and statutory_position says it in words.

What IS owed by law is the mandatory side: wages worked and unpaid, annual
leave not taken, alternative holidays not taken, and the notice period.

TWO TOTALS COME BACK AND THEY ANSWER DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
  total_all_in   everything the person receives. The SAME figure whether
                 notice is worked or paid in lieu. Quote this when someone
                 asks what they will get.
  total_package  the final pay only. Quote this when they are asking about
                 the payslip.
They differ because notice worked arrives as ordinary salary over those
weeks rather than as a lump sum. Quoting only the final pay makes payment
in lieu look better off by a whole notice period, which it is not.

Every figure is GROSS. Redundancy compensation is an extra pay taxed at the
lump sum rate, so use nz_lump_sum_tax_calculator for the tax on it.

If they do not know whether they have a clause, tell them to check the
employment agreement, and any collective agreement or company policy it
refers to, before concluding they are owed nothing.

Args:
    annual_salary: Gross annual salary.
    years_of_service: Completed years. Part years are not counted.
    notice_weeks: Notice period in weeks.
    notice_worked: True if worked, False if paid in lieu.
    annual_leave_days: Days accrued and not taken.
    alternative_holiday_days: Days in lieu not taken.
    redundancy_clause: 'none', '2_weeks', '3_weeks', '4_weeks', 'fixed_4',
        'fixed_8', 'fixed_13' or 'custom'.
    custom_redundancy_amount: Used only with 'custom'.
    outstanding_wages: Wages worked and not yet paid.

Returns:
    Mandatory entitlements and contractual compensation kept apart, the
    final pay, and the all-in total.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notice_weeksNo
annual_salaryYes
notice_workedNo
years_of_serviceNo
annual_leave_daysNo
outstanding_wagesNo
redundancy_clauseNonone
alternative_holiday_daysNo
custom_redundancy_amountNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure — and it delivers. It reveals the critical default behavior ('The default clause here is "none"'), explains that all figures are gross, and clarifies a non-obvious behavioral nuance: total_all_in and total_package differ because notice worked arrives as ordinary salary. It even exposes the tool's deliberate stance against a common jurisdiction error, giving the agent meaningful context about how outputs are computed.

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 long but every section earns its place: the legal warning is front-loaded in caps, the two-total distinction is formatted as a scannable list, the tax pointer is one line, and the Args list is compact. Given the 9-parameter complexity and the legal nuance, this length is appropriate rather than bloated. Strong structure with headers and bolded key terms.

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 summarizes what is returned ('Mandatory entitlements and contractual compensation kept apart, the final pay, and the all-in total') and defines the two headline outputs. It covers prerequisites (checking the employment agreement), edge cases (custom clause), and cross-tool handoffs. For a 9-parameter, legally sensitive calculator, nothing material is missing.

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 description coverage is 0% — the schema only has titles and defaults, no property descriptions. The description fully compensates with an Args section that defines each parameter, adds the rule 'Completed years. Part years are not counted' for years_of_service, enumerates all redundancy_clause options, and clarifies that custom_redundancy_amount is used only with 'custom'. This is far more than the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Work out what is actually owed when a New Zealand role is made redundant.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like nz_final_pay_calculator and nz_lump_sum_tax_calculator by explaining the two totals (total_all_in vs total_package) and explicitly routing tax calculations elsewhere. An agent can immediately identify what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 provides explicit use cases ('Use for: what redundancy am I entitled to, redundancy pay NZ') and gives a strong when-to-use directive: 'START WITH THIS' for the most common error in general advice. It also tells agents when to quote each total, when to check the employment agreement first, and when to delegate tax computation to nz_lump_sum_tax_calculator. Alternatives and exclusions are handled explicitly, not left to inference.

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