Japan Public Ledgers MCP

fx_tax_vat_calc

Compute VAT for an amount in a given country from built-in VAT rate tables: net, VAT and gross, standard or reduced rate, treating the amount as VAT-inclusive or exclusive. Pure; price 0.0 (free).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Amount to compute VAT on
`country`	Yes	ISO 3166 country code with a VAT rate on file
`rateType`	No	Which VAT rate to apply (default: standard)
`amountIncludesVat`	No	Treat amount as VAT-inclusive (gross) rather than net (default: false)

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Pure; price 0.0' indicates no side effects and no cost, and 'built-in VAT rate tables' implies deterministic, offline calculation. This goes beyond the schema but could be more detailed about error handling or rate coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first clause and the behavioral note in a short second sentence. The 'Pure; price 0.0' phrase is terse but each part earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and parameters are fully documented, but there is no output schema. The description mentions 'net, VAT and gross' but does not specify the exact return structure or field names, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description restates the standard/reduced and VAT-inclusive/exclusive options but does not add meaningfully new details beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Compute VAT') and resource ('amount in a given country'), with detailed options (standard/reduced rate, VAT-inclusive/exclusive) and outputs (net, VAT, gross). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like rate listing, validation, or currency conversion.

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 clearly implies the tool is for VAT computation using built-in rate tables, with options for rate type and inclusion. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as fx_tax_sales_tax or fx_tax_vat_validate, so guidance is implicit 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 Japan Public Ledgers MCP 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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the ledger-watch groups with domain prefixes. However, there are near-duplicate utilities such as content_authenticity_domain_reputation and domain_intel_reputation, and fx_tax_convert overlaps with price_oracle_fx_rate/convert. The sheer number of tools also increases the chance of selecting the wrong one, though descriptions are generally clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is largely consistent with a <domain>_<action> or <domain>_<watch>_<action> pattern, and all names use snake_case. Minor deviations include standalone names like entity_search, kyb_report, verify_receipt, and the confusing singular/plural pair of sanction_watch_* and sanctions_screen_*. Overall, the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 172 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. It bundles dozens of unrelated utility domains (weather, carbon, CVE, geo, etc.) alongside the Japan public-ledger watches, making it unwieldy for an agent to navigate. This extreme count is a major coherence problem.

Completeness4/5

For the core Japan public-ledger domain, coverage is excellent: each ledger has search, get, timeline, recent_changes, and verify_ledger, plus cross-ledger entity_search and temporal_query. The unrelated utility areas are also fairly complete for their own purposes, but the server's scope is so broad that some utilities are duplicated (e.g., multiple currency converters). Overall, no critical dead ends in the main domain.

Resources

Need Help?