Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

YESbusiness

by ch.yesbusiness
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

VAT statement

get_vat_statement
Read-onlyIdempotent

The VAT statement (the AFC declaration) for a date range: one row per numbered form line, each with the line's own figures. method says which form it is — 'effective' (the ordinary method, with an input-tax deduction) or 'net' (the net tax debt rate, TDFN / Saldosteuersatz, where a flat rate on turnover replaces the input tax and the input-tax lines do not exist at all). Use it to answer what is owed for a period, or which method the company is on. rate is a FRACTION (0.081 is 8.1%) and is the saldo rate on the net form's turnover lines. net / vat / gross are integers in CENTS of the home currency — divide by 100. A null figure means the line has none, which is not the same as zero. The headline lines are 299 (total taxable turnover), 399 (total tax due), 479 (total input tax, effective only) and 500 / 510 (payable, or credit in the company's favour). Refused when the range is not covered by a VAT period, or crosses a change of method — each method has its own form, so ask for one period per method.

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": {
      "date_from": "<date_from>",
      "date_to": "<date_to>",
      "company_id": "<company_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_vat_statement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
date_toYesEnd of the period, YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive.
date_fromYesStart of the period, YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive.
company_idYesThe company to work on — one of list_my_companies' company_id values.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description is free to add substantive behavior: exact refusal conditions, the fact that the two methods produce structurally different forms, unit conventions (cents, fraction rate), and that null differs from zero. That is far beyond what the annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and the method distinction, then units, then key line numbers, then refusal rules — each block earns its place. It is dense and long, and the input-tax point is restated twice ('do not exist at all' and '479 … effective only'), which is a minor redundancy.

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 carries the full return-format burden and does so: row granularity, unit scaling, null-vs-zero semantics, and the four headline line numbers are all spelled out. Combined with the disclosed failure modes, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by adding constraints on the date range that the schema does not state — the range must fall inside a single VAT period and must not straddle a method change. company_id is not elaborated, and the rate/cents discussion describes output rather than inputs.

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 resource (the VAT / AFC declaration) and its shape — one row per numbered form line — and explicitly separates the two form variants ('effective' vs 'net'). An agent can distinguish this from neighboring tools such as list_vat_periods, list_vat_codes, or get_balance_sheet.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use framing ('answer what is owed for a period, or which method the company is on') plus hard exclusions: refused when the range is outside a VAT period or crosses a change of method, with the remedy 'ask for one period per method'. It never names the sibling tools that would supply the valid periods or codes, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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

All YESbusiness toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources