Verified US tax and money decision tools: verdict plus a pre-filled deep link to the full page.
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.
Average 3.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct financial decision (filing status, freelancer rate, job offer, raise/bonus, Roth vs Traditional), with no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern of descriptive snake_case phrases, clearly indicating the decision type.
Five tools is a reasonable number for a decision-support server, covering common personal finance scenarios without being excessive or too thin.
While core decisions are covered, there are notable gaps such as mortgage vs. rent, debt payoff strategies, or investment comparisons, which limit completeness for the full domain.
best_filing_statusMarried Filing Jointly vs SeparatelyAMarried Filing Jointly vs Separately — Compares Married Filing Jointly vs Separately for a couple and says which keeps more, including lost credits. Returns a one-line verdict plus a link to the full interactive page with the numbers pre-filled. Accepts only numbers and enums.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Tax year, e.g. 2026. Omit to use the current tax year. | |
| spouseA | Yes | ||
| spouseB | Yes | ||
| otherDependents | No | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). | |
| investmentIncome | No | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). | |
| qualifyingChildren | No | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). | |
| hasChildcareExpenses | No | true or false. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output format (one-line verdict + link) and stating input constraints (numbers and enums). No contradiction 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and output, with a concise constraint. Every sentence is necessary and no waste.
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?
For a tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the comparison logic and result format. It mentions lost credits and the link, which are important context. Minor lack of detail on the verdict format is acceptable.
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 coverage is 71% with descriptions for most parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema; the statement 'Accepts only numbers and enums' is slightly misleading as there are boolean and object parameters. Overall, parameter meaning is adequately covered by the schema.
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 Married Filing Jointly vs Separately and returns which keeps more, with specifics like lost credits and a one-line verdict plus link. It is distinct from sibling tools which cover other financial comparisons.
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 implies use for choosing filing status but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
freelance_rate_floorFreelance Rate FloorAFreelance Rate Floor — Calculates the hourly rate a freelancer must bill to match a given salary after self-employment tax and lost benefits. Returns a one-line verdict plus a link to the full interactive page with the numbers pre-filled. Accepts only numbers and enums.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Tax year, e.g. 2026. Omit to use the current tax year. | |
| stateCode | Yes | Two-letter US state code, e.g. CA, TX, NY. | |
| filingStatus | Yes | One of: single, married_joint, married_separate, head_of_household. | |
| currentSalary | Yes | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). | |
| annualBenefitsValue | Yes | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). | |
| billableHoursPerYear | No | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds behavioral context: returns a one-line verdict plus a link with pre-filled numbers. No side effects or destructive actions are mentioned, which is consistent.
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?
Two sentences, no excess. The first sentence covers purpose and output, the second adds input constraints and output format. Efficient and well-structured.
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?
For a calculator tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains input constraints and output format (verdict + link). Could be more detailed about edge cases or the link behavior, but sufficient for most uses.
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?
All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds only a general note about accepting numbers and enums, which does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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 states precisely what the tool computes (hourly rate to match salary after tax and benefits) and what it returns (verdict + link). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like best_filing_status or job_offer_worth_it.
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 implies use for freelancers comparing salary to freelance rate, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tool names are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
job_offer_worth_itIs this job offer worth it?BIs this job offer worth it? — Compares two jobs on real take-home pay after federal, state, FICA, 401(k) and commute, and says which wins and by how much. Returns a one-line verdict plus a link to the full interactive page with the numbers pre-filled. Accepts only numbers and enums.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offer | Yes | ||
| current | Yes | ||
| options | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition that the tool 'compares and returns a verdict' does not contradict. The description adds context about the computation (take-home pay after deductions) but no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction found.
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 efficiently written in two sentences plus a standalone statement, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or fluff. It could be slightly improved by structuring parameter hints, but overall it is well-organized for its length.
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 tool's high complexity (3 top-level objects, many nested fields, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains the return value ('one-line verdict plus a link') but provides no guidance on input structure or how the complex schema maps to the described factors (e.g., commute, 401(k)). The agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly without schema descriptions or more detailed help.
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 0%, meaning no property descriptions exist in the schema. The description only says 'Accepts only numbers and enums,' which is insufficient for a complex nested object with many fields like 'current', 'offer', and 'options'. It fails to explain what parameters like 'commute', 'filingStatus', or 'retirementContributionPercent' represent, leaving the agent unable to correctly populate inputs.
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's purpose: 'Compares two jobs on real take-home pay after federal, state, FICA, 401(k) and commute, and says which wins and by how much.' The verb 'compares' and resource 'jobs' with the specific financial factors make the function distinct from sibling tools like 'best_filing_status' or 'roth_vs_traditional'.
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 implies the tool is used for comparing job offers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, relying on implicit differentiation from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
raise_bonus_valueRaise / Bonus True ValueARaise / Bonus True Value — Shows how much of a raise or bonus you actually keep after marginal tax and lifestyle inflation. Returns a one-line verdict plus a link to the full interactive page with the numbers pre-filled. Accepts only numbers and enums.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | One of: raise, bonus. | |
| year | No | Tax year, e.g. 2026. Omit to use the current tax year. | |
| stateCode | Yes | Two-letter US state code, e.g. CA, TX, NY. | |
| raiseAmount | Yes | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). | |
| filingStatus | Yes | One of: single, married_joint, married_separate, head_of_household. | |
| currentSalary | Yes | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). | |
| annualInflationPercent | No | Percentage from 0 to 100. | |
| lifestyleInflationPercent | No | Percentage from 0 to 100. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns a one-line verdict and link. 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?
Three sentences with the purpose front-loaded. No wasted words; every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
While purpose is clear, the description lacks detail on the calculation (e.g., what 'marginal tax and lifestyle inflation' entail) and does not describe the return format beyond 'one-line verdict,' leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds 'accepts only numbers and enums,' which is already obvious from the schema, so no meaningful addition.
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 calculates the net value of a raise or bonus after tax and lifestyle inflation, using specific verbs ('shows') and a defined resource. It is distinct from siblings like job_offer_worth_it.
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 implies usage for examining raise/bonus impact but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference sibling tools as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
roth_vs_traditionalRoth vs TraditionalARoth vs Traditional — Compares Roth vs Traditional retirement contributions: the break-even retirement tax rate and which to choose. Returns a one-line verdict plus a link to the full interactive page with the numbers pre-filled. Accepts only numbers and enums.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). | |
| year | No | Tax year, e.g. 2026. Omit to use the current tax year. | |
| accountType | No | One of: 401k, ira. | |
| yearsToGrow | No | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). | |
| filingStatus | Yes | One of: single, married_joint, married_separate, head_of_household. | |
| annualReturnRate | No | Decimal fraction, e.g. 0.07 for 7%. Must be between 0 and 1 (do not pass a whole-number percent). | |
| currentGrossIncome | Yes | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). | |
| afterTaxContribution | No | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). | |
| expectedRetirementIncome | Yes | A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe, repeatable computation. The description adds that output is a one-line verdict plus a link, and input restrictions. No contradiction. Provides moderate extra context.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and output, second clarifies input types. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
For a 9-param tool with 3 required and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain how to interpret results beyond 'one-line verdict' or emphasize required parameters. Schema compensates, but description could be richer.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description only adds 'Accepts only numbers and enums', which is redundant. Description does not provide additional meaning beyond schema fields.
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 Roth vs Traditional retirement contributions and returns a break-even tax rate and verdict. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover different financial topics like filing status, freelance rates, job offers, etc.
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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says it compares Roth vs Traditional and accepts numbers/enums. No guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!