smarthr-member-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_payslips

Retrieves payslip and bonus statement data for a specified payment year, returning attendance, earnings, deductions, and other line items for salary review.

Instructions

指定した年（支給日基準）の給与明細・賞与明細を取得し、勤怠・支給・控除・その他の項目を返す。

初回やログインが切れているときは Chrome が開くので、そこで手動ログインする。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "year": "<year>"
    },
    "name": "list_payslips"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious trait: the tool may launch a browser window and block on manual authentication. It stops short of explaining failure modes, timeouts, or that the operation is read-only beyond the implied '取得'.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the exceptional login case. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required; the description still sketches the returned categories. Combined with the payment-date clarification and the login caveat, an agent has enough to call it, with only edge-case behavior (empty year, session persistence) left unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter, and it does: it pins the year semantics to the payment date (支給日基準), which the bare integer schema does not convey. Only one parameter exists and its meaning is now clear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('給与明細・賞与明細を取得') and names the filtering scope (year, payment-date basis) plus the data categories returned (attendance, earnings, deductions, others). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling estimate_income, but the read/retrieve framing is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a real operational precondition — the first call or an expired session opens Chrome and requires manual login — which tells the agent when to expect interactive behavior. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or what happens for a year with no records.

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

Deploy Server