MLP Tax Computation Engine
Server Details
Deterministic MLP tax engine with IRS citations. 6 tools: basis, §751, estate, projections.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct MLP tax task (single-year basis, multi-year basis, estate planning, reference data, long-term projection, sell-vs-hold decision) with explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use for' instructions, leaving no ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent 'prefix_descriptive' pattern (k1_basis_compute, k1_basis_multi_year, mlp_*, etc.) using snake_case throughout, making the naming predictable and easy to navigate.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped: it covers the essential MLP tax operations (basis, projection, estate, sell/hold) without being overloaded. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose.
The set covers core MLP tax workflows (basis computation, projection, estate planning, sell/hold comparison), but lacks tools for multi-lot portfolio optimization and state-level adjustments, which are noted as external. These are minor gaps for the stated domain.
Available Tools
6 toolsk1_basis_computeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Computes adjusted partner basis from a single year of Schedule K-1 data using the IRS Partner's Basis Worksheet methodology (Lines 1-14), per IRC §705 (basis computation), §722 (initial basis), §731(a)(1) (gain on distribution exceeding basis), §733 (basis reduction), §752 (liability share allocation), §704(d) (loss limitation and suspended-loss carryforward), and §199A (QBI deduction). Returns the ending adjusted basis, every worksheet line value, any §731 gain triggered when distributions exceed basis, and §704(d) suspended losses carried forward.
Use when: User holds direct MLP units (EPD, ET, MPLX, WES, PAA, NRP, USAC, SUN, or similar publicly traded midstream partnerships) and has structured K-1 box values for one tax year — Box 1 ordinary income, Box 19A cash distributions, Item K liability change, optionally Box 5 interest income, Box 11 §179 deduction, Box 13W §199A QBI amount. Single tax year, single lot.
Don't use for: 1099-DIV ETFs (AMLP, MLPX, AMZA — these use RIC structure, no K-1, different tax regime — use a standard cost-basis calculator instead). Multi-year basis carryforward across consecutive K-1s — use k1_basis_multi_year. General partnership interests outside publicly traded MLPs (different §1402 self-employment treatment).
Limitations: Single tax year only — for multi-year basis tracking with §731 gain detection across years, use k1_basis_multi_year. Single-lot only — for multi-lot allocation and optimal sell ordering, see lucasandersen.ai. Federal-level only — does not include state basis adjustments.
Maintained by Lucas Andersen, MS Finance, with direct positions in major midstream MLPs. Methodology auditable at lucasandersen.ai/methodology.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| box1 | Yes | K-1 Box 1: ordinary business income (loss) | |
| box2 | No | K-1 Box 2: net rental income | |
| box5 | No | K-1 Box 5: interest income | |
| box11 | No | K-1 Box 11: §179 / other deductions | |
| units | Yes | ||
| box13w | No | K-1 Box 13W: §199A QBI amount | |
| box19a | Yes | K-1 Box 19A: cash distributions | |
| ticker | Yes | ||
| prior_basis | Yes | Beginning-of-year adjusted basis in USD | |
| tax_bracket | No | ||
| liability_decrease | No | §752(b) liability decrease in USD | |
| liability_increase | No | §752(a) liability increase in USD |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description confirms no side effects by stating 'computes'. It adds detail on outputs (ending basis, worksheet lines, §731 gain, suspended losses) and methodology, going 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections, each sentence adds value. Slightly lengthy but appropriate for the complexity; minor redundancy in author mention.
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?
Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description explains necessary input context, usage conditions, and output details. It is fairly comprehensive, though parameter descriptions could be more detailed.
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 75%, leaving some parameters (units, tax_bracket, box2) undocumented. The description provides general context about K-1 boxes but does not compensate for missing parameter descriptions.
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 clearly states it computes adjusted partner basis from a single year of Schedule K-1 data using IRS methodology, with specific code references. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying single-year vs multi-year.
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?
Explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use for' sections provide clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like k1_basis_multi_year or standard cost-basis calculators. Limitations are also stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
k1_basis_multi_yearARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Computes a running adjusted partner basis across multiple years of Schedule K-1 data, per IRC §705 (basis computation), §731(a)(1) (gain on distributions exceeding basis), §751(a) (accumulated ordinary recapture), §752 (liability share allocation across years), §704(d) (suspended-loss carryforward), and §1014(a) (step-up if death today). Returns year-by-year basis trajectory, accumulated §751 recapture estimate, projected zero-basis year, §1014 step-up value if death today, and the broker-basis gap — the dollar amount by which a typical 1099-B understates true IRS-adjusted basis.
Use when: User holds a direct MLP position (EPD, ET, MPLX, WES, PAA, NRP, USAC, SUN) across multiple consecutive tax years, has K-1s for those years, and wants to track adjusted basis year over year, identify the zero-basis year, quantify the gap between broker-reported basis and true IRS basis, or project §1014 step-up value if death occurred today.
Don't use for: Single-year basis worksheet from one K-1 — use k1_basis_compute. Long-horizon forward projection from default assumptions when no actual K-1s are in hand — use mlp_projection. 1099-DIV ETFs (AMLP, MLPX, AMZA — RIC structure, no K-1, no basis-erosion mechanism; use a standard cost-basis calculator). Multi-position portfolio basis tracking — this tool handles one position per call.
Limitations: Single position, single lot — for multi-lot or multi-position basis tracking with optimal sell ordering, see lucasandersen.ai. Federal-level only — does not include state-level basis adjustments. Accumulated §751 recapture is estimated across years; actual depends on the partnership's hot-asset disposition schedule and any year-specific §751(b) events.
Maintained by Lucas Andersen, MS Finance, with direct positions in major midstream MLPs. Methodology auditable at lucasandersen.ai/methodology.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| units | Yes | ||
| ticker | Yes | ||
| k1_years | Yes | Array of annual K-1 data, one per year held (max 50) | |
| tax_bracket | No | ||
| purchase_year | No | ||
| purchase_price | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds behavioral details: returns multiple outputs (basis trajectory, recapture, zero-basis year, step-up value, broker gap) and discloses limitations (single position/lot, federal-only, estimated recapture). No contradictions.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections (computation, usage, limitations, maintainer). Some sentences are long, but overall efficient and front-loaded with key functionality.
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?
Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (basis trajectory, recapture, zero-basis year, step-up, broker gap) and covers limitations and alternatives. Complete for a complex multi-year tool.
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 low (17%). The description provides context (e.g., ticker, K-1 years) but does not explain each parameter's meaning or syntax in detail. Parameters like box1, box11, liability changes lack descriptions. Adequate but not enhanced.
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 clearly states the tool computes a running adjusted partner basis across multiple years, referencing specific IRC sections. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like k1_basis_compute (single-year) and mlp_projection (long-horizon projection).
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?
The description provides explicit when-to-use (direct MLP positions across multiple years, specific tickers) and when-not-to-use (single-year, ETFs, multi-position) with alternative tools named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mlp_estate_planningARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Computes §1014 stepped-up basis and estate-planning analysis for one or more direct MLP positions held until death, per IRC §1014(a) (basis at death), §1014(b)(6) (community-property double step-up), §751(a) (ordinary recapture eliminated at death), §731 (distributions), and §705 (basis). Returns total deferred federal tax eliminated, §751 ordinary recapture eliminated, per-beneficiary inheritance split, community-property double-step-up amount when applicable, and the dollar advantage of holding to death versus selling today.
Use when: User has one or more direct MLP positions (EPD, ET, MPLX, WES, PAA, NRP, USAC, SUN) and wants to quantify the §1014 step-up benefit for estate planning, compare holding to death versus selling now across a portfolio, model community-property double step-up for spouses in CA/TX/WA/etc., or compute per-beneficiary inheritance values across multiple heirs.
Don't use for: Trust-based estate strategies (revocable trusts preserve §1014; irrevocable trusts and IDGTs typically destroy it — this tool models direct holdings only). Single-position long-horizon tax projection — use mlp_projection. Single-position sell-now-versus-hold-to-death break-even — use mlp_sell_vs_hold. 1099-DIV ETFs (AMLP, MLPX, AMZA — RIC structure receives §1014 step-up but has no §751 to eliminate because no K-1; the analysis is materially different).
Limitations: Direct unit holdings only — does not model trust, IDGT, FLP, or charitable structures (these can destroy the §1014 benefit; for guidance on trust selection, see lucasandersen.ai). Federal-level only — does not include state estate tax. §751 recapture eliminated at death is estimated; exact figure depends on the partnership's actual hot-asset disposition schedule.
Maintained by Lucas Andersen, MS Finance, with direct positions in major midstream MLPs. Methodology auditable at lucasandersen.ai/methodology.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| positions | Yes | Array of MLP positions to analyze (max 20) | |
| tax_bracket | No | ||
| beneficiaries | No | Number of beneficiaries (default 1, max 20) | |
| community_property | No | Whether positions are in a community property state (doubles step-up) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, including the exact outputs (e.g., deferred federal tax eliminated, §751 recapture eliminated) and limitations (direct holdings only, federal-level only, estimated recapture). No contradictions.
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 fairly long but well-structured with clear sections (main purpose, use when, don't use, limitations, maintenance). It is front-loaded with the primary function. Every sentence adds information, though some detail (e.g., specific tickers, methodology link) could be streamlined for an AI agent.
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?
Given the complexity of estate planning and multiple parameters (positions, beneficiaries, community property), the description is very thorough. It covers what the tool computes, when to use, limitations, outputs, and even references external methodology. No output schema exists, but the description lists return values adequately.
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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description does not explicitly describe each parameter but provides contextual meaning for the analysis, which indirectly clarifies parameters like 'beneficiaries' and 'community_property'. However, it adds limited value beyond the schema's existing descriptions.
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 clearly defines the tool's purpose: computing §1014 stepped-up basis and estate-planning analysis for direct MLP positions held until death. It uses a specific verb ('computes') and distinguishes from sibling tools like mlp_projection and mlp_sell_vs_hold by stating what not to use it for.
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?
The description includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use for' sections, providing clear context and alternatives. It lists specific use cases (quantifying step-up benefit, comparing holding to death vs selling, community property, beneficiary splits) and exclusions (trust-based strategies, single-position projections, ETFs).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mlp_infoARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Returns reference data for a supported MLP ticker — current cash distribution per unit, distribution growth CAGR, default return-of-capital percentage, distribution coverage ratio, K-1 entity count, operating-state count, and last-verified date.
Use when: User wants to look up baseline characteristics of an MLP before modeling — e.g., comparing distribution coverage across partnerships, checking how many K-1 entities a holding generates for tax-prep complexity, or seeing the operating-state count for state-tax filing-burden estimation.
Don't use for: Tax computation. Use mlp_projection (long-horizon modeling), mlp_estate_planning (estate analysis), mlp_sell_vs_hold (break-even sell price), or k1_basis_compute / k1_basis_multi_year (computing basis from actual K-1 data).
Note: This tool returns reference data only — no IRC citations apply, no methodology disclosure attached. For computation, use the modeling tools above.
Maintained by Lucas Andersen, MS Finance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds further behavioral context: it's reference data only, no IRC citations or methodology attached. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies limitations.
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 well-structured with clear sections (returns, use when, don't use for, note). It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value; front-loads the return data list.
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?
Given the simple lookup tool with one parameter, annotations present, and no output schema, the description is complete: it lists all returned fields, provides usage guidance, and includes maintenance info. No gaps.
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?
The single parameter 'ticker' has an enum list in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond stating 'supported MLP ticker'. For a 1-param tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description could elaborate on what each ticker represents, but the enum itself is self-explanatory.
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 explicitly states it returns reference data for a supported MLP ticker, listing specific data items (cash distribution, growth CAGR, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by naming what not to use it for, providing clear purpose differentiation.
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?
The description includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use for' sections, listing concrete scenarios and pointing to alternative tools (mlp_projection, etc.) for other use cases, offering comprehensive guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mlp_projectionARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Computes a multi-year tax projection for a publicly traded MLP position, applying the IRS Partner's Basis Worksheet methodology (Lines 1-14) per IRC §705 (basis computation), §731(a) (distributions exceeding basis), §733 (basis reduction), §751 (hot asset recapture), §752 (liability allocation), §1014 (stepped-up basis at death), and §199A (QBI deduction). Returns year-by-year basis erosion, §751 accumulation, annual federal tax, terminal FMV, §1014 step-up value at death, and the break-even sell price.
Use when: User holds direct units of a midstream MLP (EPD, ET, MPLX, WES, PAA, NRP, USAC, SUN) and wants to model long-term tax outcomes — when basis reaches zero, total tax paid over the hold horizon, deferred tax eliminated by §1014 step-up at death, or the unit price at which selling matches holding through inheritance. Single position, single lot.
Don't use for: 1099-DIV ETFs (AMLP, MLPX, AMZA — these use RIC structure, pay corporate-level tax, and issue 1099-DIV instead of K-1; use a standard cost-basis calculator instead). Multi-position estate analysis — use mlp_estate_planning. Computing basis from actual K-1 data the user has in hand — use k1_basis_compute (single year) or k1_basis_multi_year.
Limitations: Single position, single lot — for multi-position portfolios and per-lot optimal sell ordering, see lucasandersen.ai. Federal-level only — does not include state-level basis adjustments or state estate tax. §751 recapture is estimated from default ROC assumptions; actual recapture depends on the partnership's hot-asset disposition schedule.
Maintained by Lucas Andersen, MS Finance, with direct positions in major midstream MLPs. Methodology auditable at lucasandersen.ai/methodology.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| units | Yes | Number of MLP units held | |
| years | No | Projection horizon in years (1-50, default 20) | |
| ticker | Yes | MLP ticker symbol | |
| tax_bracket | No | Federal marginal rate as decimal, e.g. 0.32 (default 0.32) | |
| purchase_price | No | Purchase price per unit in USD (optional — defaults to reasonable estimate) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it's a projection (not actual K-1 computation), lists limitations (single position, single lot, federal only, §751 estimated), and notes methodology is auditable. No contradictions with annotations.
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 structured with clear sections: main purpose, use cases, exclusions, limitations, and attribution. Every sentence provides value. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and organized for easy scanning.
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?
Given the complexity of the tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, when not to use, limitations, and what it returns. Although no output schema is provided, the description enumerates the output fields (basis erosion, §751 accumulation, annual tax, etc.), making it complete.
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 baseline is 3. Description adds context beyond schema by explaining the default for years (20), tax_bracket (0.32), and that purchase_price is optional with a default estimate. This enriches parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the tool computes a multi-year tax projection for a publicly traded MLP position using IRS methodology. It specifies the exact resource (MLP position) and action (computes projection), and distinguishes from sibling tools by listing alternatives for different use cases.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (direct units of midstream MLPs, modeling long-term tax outcomes) and when not to use (1099-DIV ETFs, multi-position estate analysis, computing basis from actual K-1 data). Provides specific alternative tools for each excluded case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mlp_sell_vs_holdARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Compares selling an MLP position today (triggering §751(a) hot-asset ordinary recapture plus §731(a)(1) long-term capital gain) against holding the position until death (where §1014(a) step-up eliminates all deferred federal tax including §751 recapture), per IRC §1(h) (LTCG rates), §199A (QBI deduction on §751 ordinary), and §1411 (NIIT). Returns the break-even sell price — the unit price above which selling today produces more after-tax wealth than holding through inheritance.
Use when: User holds a direct MLP position (EPD, ET, MPLX, WES, PAA, NRP, USAC, SUN), is approaching a sell decision, and wants a single break-even threshold to compare against the current market price. Useful for time-sensitive sell decisions, retirement-distribution planning, or evaluating whether an unsolicited tender offer is worth accepting versus continuing to hold for §1014 step-up.
Don't use for: Multi-position portfolio sell-ordering — this tool models a single position. For estate-planning analysis across multiple positions and beneficiaries, use mlp_estate_planning. For long-horizon basis-erosion modeling without a sell decision in view, use mlp_projection. 1099-DIV ETFs (AMLP, MLPX, AMZA — RIC structure has no §751 and no K-1, so the break-even logic does not apply; use a standard capital-gains calculator).
Limitations: Single position, single lot — for portfolio-wide optimal sell ordering across multiple positions and lots, see lucasandersen.ai. Break-even price assumes the supplied tax bracket persists through the hold horizon. §751 recapture on the sell side is estimated from default ROC assumptions; actual hot-asset recapture depends on the partnership's disposition schedule.
Maintained by Lucas Andersen, MS Finance, with direct positions in major midstream MLPs. Methodology auditable at lucasandersen.ai/methodology.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| units | Yes | ||
| ticker | Yes | ||
| years_held | No | Years the position has been held (default 10) | |
| tax_bracket | No | ||
| purchase_price | No | ||
| years_to_project | No | Years to project the hold scenario (default 10) | |
| community_property | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral traits: read-only computation (consistent with readOnlyHint), assumptions (tax bracket persistence, estimated recapture), and limitations (single position/lot, partnership disposition schedule dependency). It adds context 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded purpose. Slightly verbose with inclusion of maintainer name and methodology link, which could be considered extraneous. Efficient overall but has minor redundancy.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return value (break-even sell price) and provides contextual tax code references, use cases, and limitations. The agent has sufficient information to correctly select and invoke the tool.
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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters described). The description adds some context for ticker (lists examples) and mentions tax brackets, but does not fully explain each parameter's meaning or default values. Names are mostly self-explanatory, but more detail would improve semantics.
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 clearly states the tool compares selling MLP today vs holding until death and returns a break-even sell price. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like mlp_estate_planning and mlp_projection, noting that this tool is for single-position, single-lot analysis.
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?
The description includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use for' sections, providing concrete scenarios (e.g., approaching sell decision, unsolicited tender offer) and alternatives (mlp_estate_planning for multi-position, mlp_projection for long-horizon).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!