calculateRun the Notice period calculator calculator: Statutory minimum notice (weeks); Contractual notice (weeks); Notice that applies (weeks). Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | No | Complete years of service | |
| direction | No | Who is giving notice? | employer |
| contractWeeks | No | Notice stated in the contract (weeks) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, which is useful behavioral information. It also hints that the tool returns three notice values. However, it does not clarify side effects, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, though a calculator is likely pure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and front-loads the action, but the redundant 'calculator calculator' and the semicolon-separated output list make it slightly awkward. It is concise overall, but the wording suggests a lack of polish rather than deliberate minimalism.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple calculator with no output schema, the description lists the expected return values and the fallback behavior, which is helpful. But it does not explain how 'Notice that applies' is derived from the statutory and contractual values, nor how the 'direction' parameter affects the result. An agent can invoke it with the schema's defaults, but some semantic context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all three parameters with types, defaults, and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond listing output categories, which does not compensate for or extend the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as a notice period calculator and lists the three outputs (statutory, contractual, and applicable notice), making the function clear. The phrase 'calculator calculator' is redundant, but the verb 'Run' plus the named resource and output list are sufficient to distinguish it from the describe/enquiry siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. However, the tool name 'calculate', title 'Notice period calculator', and sibling names (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe) imply this is the tool to invoke for performing a calculation rather than describing or querying. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: calculate performs the notice calculation, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry workflow, enquiry_fields provides the field schema, and submit_enquiry handles submission. Even though two enquiry description tools exist, their roles are clearly separated by content.
The names mix styles: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-led actions, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-led descriptors. The naming is still readable, but it does not follow a single consistent convention.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server: two for the calculator workflow and three for the enquiry workflow. Each tool serves a necessary and distinct function without unnecessary redundancy.
The calculator workflow is covered by running and describing the calculation, and the enquiry workflow covers explanation, field discovery, and two-step submission with consent and confirmation. Minor gaps like enquiry status or cancellation tools are not essential for the stated purpose.