Skip to main content
Glama

Delegum

by com.delegum
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

calcular_deduccion_discapacidad

Read-only

Calcula el mínimo por discapacidad en el IRPF (Ley 35/2006, arts. 60-65) del contribuyente o de un ascendiente/descendiente a cargo: 3.000 € (grado 33%-64%) o 9.000 € (≥65%), más 3.000 € adicionales por gastos de asistencia. Ese incremento procede ante CUALQUIERA de tres supuestos ALTERNATIVOS (basta uno): acreditar ayuda de terceras personas, acreditar movilidad reducida, o tener un grado igual o superior al 65% —con grado ≥65% se aplica siempre, sin acreditar nada más—. El mínimo NO reduce la base liquidable: se grava a tipo cero (art. 63.1.2º LIRPF), de modo que el ahorro NO depende del tipo marginal del contribuyente y se valora a los tipos bajos de la escala.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gradoNoGrado de discapacidad: "33a65" (entre 33% y 64%) o "65oMas" (65% o más). Por defecto "33a65".
titularNoQuién tiene la discapacidad. Por defecto "contribuyente".
necesita_asistenciaNo¿Acredita necesidad de ayuda de terceras personas o movilidad reducida? (añade 3.000 €). Por defecto false. Irrelevante con grado "65oMas": ahí los 3.000 € se aplican por el propio grado aunque este parámetro sea false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / tipo_marginal
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Tipo marginal de IRPF para estimar el ahorro (%). Valores habituales: 19, 24, 30, 37, 45, 47. Por defecto 24.",
-  "maximum": 100,
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / necesita_asistencia / description
      Previous value: -"¿Acredita necesidad de ayuda de terceros o movilidad reducida? (añade 3.000 €). Por defecto false."New value: +"¿Acredita necesidad de ayuda de terceras personas o movilidad reducida? (añade 3.000 €). Por defecto false. Irrelevante con grado \"65oMas\": ahí los 3.000 € se aplican por el propio grado aunque este parámetro sea false."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description discloses rich behavioral and tax-mechanical context: the applicable amounts, the three alternative qualifying conditions for the increment, the automatic application at grado ≥65%, and the crucial fact that the minimum does not reduce the liquidable base but is taxed at zero rate. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

The description is dense but appropriately sized for a complex tax rule, and it front-loads the core calculation. Every sentence adds relevant legal or practical detail, though the single-paragraph structure could be slightly more scannable.

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 complexity, the description covers the calculation rules, amounts, conditions, and tax treatment thoroughly. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric result or breakdown), leaving a minor completeness gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping 'grado' to specific amounts and explaining the legal conditions that make 'necesita_asistencia' relevant or irrelevant. It reinforces the schema's note that at '65oMas' the extra amount applies regardless of the boolean.

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 states a specific verb ('Calcula') and resource ('mínimo por discapacidad en el IRPF'), gives legal references, and specifies the exact scope (contribuyente or ascendiente/descendiente a cargo). It clearly distinguishes this specialized deduction calculator from generic IRPF or other deduction tools without needing to name siblings.

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 description provides clear context for when the calculation applies, including degrees, eligible persons, and the conditions for the additional 3,000 €. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, but the scope is sufficiently clear to guide selection.

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

All Delegum 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