Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
payroll-normalizer-mcp

payroll-normalizer-mcp

by dingxiang-me
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

generate_blank_template

Generate a blank Excel template for social insurance standard wage calculation, including header instructions, dropdown menus for identity type and provident fund, and a sample row.

Instructions

生成空白的『社保测算标准工资模板』(xlsx)：含顶部填表说明、身份类型/是否缴公积金下拉、示例行。 output_path: 输出文件绝对路径(默认当前目录下 社保测算-标准工资模板.xlsx)。返回实际路径。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_blank_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format and contents, but does not mention whether the tool overwrites existing files at the default path, which is a key behavioral trait for a file generation tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus a parameter note, front-loading the core purpose and providing necessary details without extraneous text.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it generates, file contents, and parameter behavior. Minor gaps exist (e.g., overwrite) but overall sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter (output_path) has 0% schema description coverage, but the description explains its purpose, default behavior, and return value clearly, adding significant value beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 generates a blank Excel template for social security calculation, specifying file format (xlsx), contents (instructions, dropdowns, example row), and distinguishes from sibling tools (inspect, normalize, standardize) which handle existing data.

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 context is clear that this tool is for generating a blank template, implying it should be used when starting from scratch rather than processing existing files. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools