Temsor API — Turkey & EU business data

Turkish VAT & Withholding

tr_vat

Splits a Turkish amount into net, VAT and (optionally) withholding: who pays the seller, who remits the withheld VAT.

For invoice lines and checkout totals that have to show KDV dahil / hariç and, when the parties are in a withholding (tevkifat) situation, the split between what the buyer pays the seller and what the buyer remits to the tax office. Rates are 0, 1, 10 and 20 percent. Withholding is a fraction of the VAT (2/10 through 10/10), or a named code from the GİB partial-withholding list. The 2026 threshold (TRY 12,000 gross) is reported and compared with the amount, but applies is always null: whether withholding actually applies depends on the taxpayer status of both parties, which this endpoint does not know. Feeding it a fraction is not a legal opinion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rate`	No	VAT rate in percent. 0, 1, 10 or 20.
`amount`	Yes	The amount to tax. See amountIncludesVat.
`withholding`	No	Withholding fraction such as "5/10", or a code from the list (reklam, tasima, hurda, isgucu…).
`amountIncludesVat`	No	If true, `amount` is the gross (KDV dahil); if false, it is the net/matrah.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It explains the supported rates, that withholding is a fraction of VAT or a GİB code, that the 2026 threshold is reported but `applies` is always null, and that the result is not a legal opinion. This goes well beyond a typical tool description.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence supplies useful information. It packs domain context, parameter behavior, threshold caveat, and a legal disclaimer into three sentences without fluff or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must partially explain return behavior, and it does: it mentions net/VAT/withholding splits, the threshold comparison, and the always-null `applies` field. However, it does not fully enumerate the output structure or handling of invalid inputs, which would have made it fully complete.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that withholding is a fraction of the VAT itself, narrows the fraction range to '2/10 through 10/10', and explains the named-code option from the GİB partial-withholding list, which enriches the parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Splits a Turkish amount into net, VAT and (optionally) withholding.' It further distinguishes this calculator from sibling invoice/validation tools by naming the exact Turkish VAT domain concepts (KDV dahil/hariç, tevkifat) and the split responsibility between seller and buyer.

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 states when this tool should be used: 'For invoice lines and checkout totals that have to show KDV dahil / hariç' and for withholding (tevkifat) situations. It gives strong context and domain applicability, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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.

All Temsor API — Turkey & EU business data 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., bic_validate vs vin_validate), but there is notable overlap: tr_validate bundles Turkish validations that are also covered individually by iban_validate and tin_validate. Also, lei_validate and lei_lookup are closely related but distinct enough. Overall, agents can usually pick the right tool, but a few pairs could confuse.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently snake_case with predominately verb_noun patterns (e.g., validate, lookup, screen, parse, build). Some nouns like mcp_index, model_archive, and series_history break the verb pattern but are still predictable. Minor deviations from the noun_verb form (tr_invoice_build, shipping_identify) don't cause confusion. Very readable and consistent overall.

Tool Count3/5

With 27 tools, the set is heavy, exceeding the typical 3–15 well-scoped range. However, the server covers a broad domain: international standards validation, Turkey-specific business data (fuel, labor, invoices, addresses), and even MCP/LLM model archives. The count is justifiable given the scope, but it stretches coherence and may overwhelm agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive for the stated Turkey & EU business data purpose: validators for most ID types, VAT, IBAN, phone, VIN, sanctions; plus Turkey-specific operations like invoice build/parse, labor calculations, fuel prices, business days, and address parsing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general exchange-rate conversion, no credit-note-specific builder), but agents can accomplish core workflows without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?