malaysia-payroll-mcp

Calculate SOCSO, SKBBK and EIS contributions

calculate_socso_eis

Read-only

Calculates monthly SOCSO, SKBBK and EIS contributions for one employee in Malaysia from fixed salary, age, citizenship and pay period, citing the PERKESO table row used.

Instructions

Works out the monthly SOCSO (PERKESO, Act 4), SKBBK (Lindung 24 Jam) and EIS (Act 800) contributions for one employee in Malaysia, from the PERKESO tables in effect for the pay period, and cites the row used for each. Fixed monthly salaries only.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`age`	Yes	The employee's age in whole years.
`payPeriod`	No	The calendar month the salary is paid for, as YYYY-MM. It decides which rate tables apply. Defaults to the current month in Malaysia.
`citizenship`	Yes	malaysian, permanent_resident, or non_malaysian (a foreign worker without PR).
`skbbkStatus`	No	SOCSO's 24-hour protection scheme (SKBBK, Lindung 24 Jam). Everyone is covered by default; opted_out only if PERKESO approved the employee's opt-out, which foreign workers can't do. Defaults to covered.
`monthlySalary`	Yes	Monthly salary in RM, at most 2 decimal places: basic pay plus fixed allowances. Excludes overtime, commission, bonuses and arrears.
`eisPayableBefore57`	No	Required for employees aged 57 to 59: true if EIS contributions were payable for them before they turned 57 (even if never paid). Can't be worked out from age.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eis`	Yes
`skbbk`	Yes
`socso`	Yes
`totals`	Yes
`citations`	Yes
`payPeriod`	Yes
`disclaimer`	Yes
`explanation`	Yes
`skbbkStatus`	Yes
`monthlySalary`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavior: contributions are derived from the rate tables in effect for the pay period, and the response cites the table row used per contribution — traceability an agent would otherwise not expect.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, the three contribution types, the scope, the rate-table dependency, and the exclusion all present. No clause is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

All required context is covered: the statutory schemes, the one-employee scope, the fixed-salary restriction, the pay-period table versioning, and the citation behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (including the payPeriod table-selection and the 57–59 EIS flag) are already documented. The description reinforces salary composition ('fixed monthly salaries only') and pay-period-driven table selection but adds no parameter detail the schema lacks.

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?

Names a specific computation (monthly SOCSO/SKBBK/EIS contributions) with the exact statutory basis (Act 4, Act 800, Lindung 24 Jam) and scope (one employee, Malaysia). The resource is distinct enough from the solo sibling calculate_epf that no agent could confuse the two.

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?

States a hard eligibility boundary — 'Fixed monthly salaries only' — which tells the agent when not to call it, and scopes output to one employee. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or the procedure for non-fixed pay, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server