Skip to main content
Glama

Xearno Tools

France Paid-Holiday Accrual During Sick Leave (post-2024 rules)

france_conges_arret_maladie
Read-only

How many congés payés your sick-leave months actually earn under the April 2024 law — the opposite of what most of the internet still says. Computes the paid-holiday days (congés payés) you acquire in a reference period (1 June – 31 May) that includes sick leave, under France’s April 2024 reform (loi 2024-364 “DDADUE”, Code du travail L3141-3/-5/-5-1). Until that law, ordinary sick leave earned NO paid holiday — decades of French web pages and the AI trained on them still say so — but the law now says the opposite: ordinary sick months accrue 2 jours ouvrables per month (capped at 24 sick-accrued days per period) and work-accident/occupational-illness (AT/MP) months accrue the full 2.5, with the old one-year limit removed. The decisive input is the absence type — it changes both the rate and the cap — and the 15-month carry-over clock that only starts when your employer informs you decides whether the days survive at all.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conventionNoYour company counts holiday in… The Code counts in jours ouvrables (6-day weeks, 30/year max). Many companies convert to jours ouvrés (5-day weeks, 25/year) — the ×5/6 conversion must never leave you worse off.ouvrables
sickMonthsNoMonths on sick leave in the reference period (mo) Months of sick absence between 1 June and 31 May (the legal reference period). Count each month the arrêt covered.
absenceTypeNoWhat kind of sick leave? THE gate — ordinary sick months accrue 2 jours ouvrables/month (sick-accrued portion capped at 24 per period); AT/MP months accrue the full 2.5, and the old one-year limit on AT/MP accrual is gone.nonOccupational
workedMonthsNoMonths worked in the same period (mo) Months actually worked (or otherwise fully assimilated to work — maternity leave, training…) in the same 1 June – 31 May period. Sick + worked cannot exceed 12.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (true), the description discloses behavioral details such as the impact of absence type on accrual rate and cap, the removal of the one-year limit for AT/MP, and the 15-month carry-over clock. This adds significant value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is informative but verbose, containing nearly 200 words. While it front-loads the key point, it could be more concise without losing necessary context.

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 covers the tool's purpose and inputs thoroughly, including legal background. However, it does not explicitly describe the output format (e.g., the number of days or a breakdown). Given there is no output schema, an explicit mention of return values would enhance completeness.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description enriches each parameter with legal context and practical implications. For example, it explains why absenceType is a 'gate' and what the cap means. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool computes paid-holiday days acquired during sick leave under France's April 2024 law. It uses specific verbs like 'computes' and defines the resource precisely. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a France-specific HR calculator.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you have sick leave months in a reference period and want to know accrual under the new law) and emphasizes the decisive input (absenceType). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer usage.

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.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct niche (e.g., specific country tax rules, loan types, or legal calculations), with detailed descriptions that clarify boundaries. However, the large number of tools (66) could cause some confusion for an agent trying to select the right one for a general query, especially when multiple tools relate to the same country.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a mostly predictable pattern: lowercase words separated by underscores, often starting with a country name (e.g., 'uk_stamp_duty_sdlt') or a topic (e.g., 'compound_growth'). There are minor deviations, such as abbreviations ('npv_irr', 'sip') and varying use of verbs, but overall the naming is clear and consistent.

Tool Count3/5

At 66 tools, the server is unusually large and covers an extensive range of financial and legal calculators. While each tool justifies its existence, the count exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3–15), making the server feel bloated. A more modular design might improve coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide array of domains: personal income taxes, property taxes, loan calculations, investment returns, and specific country regulations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing tools for corporate taxes, general retirement planning, or insurance), but the overall coverage is thorough and addresses many niche scenarios that general AI handles poorly.

Resources