MCP Europe Tools

by app.railway.up.mcp-europe-tools-production

get_vat_rate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns all VAT (Value Added Tax) rates for a given EU country — standard, reduced, intermediate, and super-reduced rates where applicable, as numeric percentages. Returns { country, standard, reduced?, intermediate?, superreduced? } for supported countries, or { error, available } listing all valid codes if the country is not found. Supports 18 EU member states: PT, ES, FR, DE, IT, NL, BE, PL, SE, DK, FI, AT, IE, GR, HU, RO, CZ, HR. Use when calculating EU cross-border invoice tax, determining correct rate for e-commerce checkout by customer country, generating compliant VAT breakdowns, or any workflow requiring accurate and current EU VAT rates per jurisdiction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`country_code`	Yes	Two-letter ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. Example: 'PT' for Portugal, 'FR' for France, 'DE' for Germany

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the return format ('Returns { country, standard, reduced?, intermediate?, superreduced? }'), error behavior for invalid countries ('{ error, available } listing all valid codes'), and that rates are numeric percentages. It also lists supported countries, providing full transparency for a read-only lookup.

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 well-structured and efficient: the first sentence states the core function, followed by output format, supported countries, and use cases. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return values, including conditional fields and error cases. It also specifies the supported country set and the numeric format of rates. This is complete for a simple read-only lookup tool with one parameter.

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 input schema already provides a detailed description for country_code (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, examples). The description adds value by listing the 18 supported country codes, which helps the agent choose valid input values. Since the schema already covers parameter semantics well, this extra country list justifies a score above baseline.

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's function: 'Returns all VAT (Value Added Tax) rates for a given EU country' and specifies the types of rates (standard, reduced, intermediate, super-reduced). It also provides the output structure and supported countries, making it distinct from sibling tools that deal with holidays, validation, or working days.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly details when to use the tool: 'Use when calculating EU cross-border invoice tax, determining correct rate for e-commerce checkout by customer country, generating compliant VAT breakdowns, or any workflow requiring accurate and current EU VAT rates per jurisdiction.' This gives clear context and implicitly differentiates it from other tools in the sibling list.

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

All MCP Europe Tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Multiple validators are differentiated by country and entity type (NIF, SIRET, TVA, IBAN). The only potential overlap is between calculate_working_days and get_portugal_holidays, but their purposes are clearly distinct: one counts days, the other lists holidays.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a lowercase verb_noun pattern, but country encoding is inconsistent: some use prefix (get_france_holidays), some suffix (validate_nif_es), and some omit it entirely (validate_nif, validate_siret). The verb set is consistent (get, validate, calculate, format), but the inconsistencies in noun structure prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. Each tool covers a distinct utility and the count is appropriate for the stated European business scope.

Completeness3/5

The server provides holiday data for France, Spain, and Portugal, but only calculates working days for Portugal. There is no working-days calculation for France or Spain despite equivalent holiday tools existing. Additionally, tax ID validation is limited to Portugal, Spain, and France, leaving other supported VAT/IBAN countries without fiscal identifier validation. These are notable gaps that affect agents handling non-Portuguese deadlines.

Resources

Need Help?