Calculate European VAT and global Sales Tax in Add Mode (Net -> Gross) or Remove Mode (Gross -> Net) with statutory rate presets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | 'add' to add VAT to net price, 'remove' to extract VAT from gross | add |
| amount | Yes | Monetary amount | |
| vatRatePercent | Yes | Tax rate in % (e.g. 20 for UK/France, 19 for Germany) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core transformations (Net -> Gross and Gross -> Net) and mentions statutory rate presets, but it does not clarify rounding behavior, output format, or whether those presets are actually selectable through the schema.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core function and modes. It contains no redundant filler or unnecessary background.
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?
The tool is relatively simple and the parameters are fully explained by the schema, but the absence of an output schema and the vague 'statutory rate presets' claim leave some ambiguity about results and preset behavior. It is adequate, though not fully complete.
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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds context around the modes but does not provide additional semantics for amount or vatRatePercent beyond what the schema already states.
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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and clearly identifies the resource ('European VAT and global Sales Tax'), while also naming the two modes (Add and Remove). It does not differentiate from siblings by name, but the domain is distinct enough among the listed calculation tools.
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 when to use the tool: whenever VAT or sales tax needs to be added or removed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tax-related tools such as indian_income_tax or b2b_withholding_risk.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly separated by domain and target calculation, such as rocket_deltav versus projectile_motion or black_scholes versus compound_wealth. A few pairs like home_loan_emi/mortgage_piti and contractor_parity/billable_floor could be initially confused, but the descriptions resolve the intended use cases.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case and generally follow a topic-plus-suffix pattern, which is readable and consistent. The pattern is not a strict verb_noun convention, and acronym-heavy names like feie_nomad_tracker, scorp_optimizer, and casio_991_solve introduce stylistic variance.
At exactly 25 tools, this is at the heavy but still usable end of the scale. The broad spread across tax, finance, engineering, physics, math, and cloud cost makes the server feel more like several domain calculators merged into one service.
Each tool is a self-contained calculation with no missing follow-up operations, so there are no obvious dead ends for the workflows it targets. The main gaps are minor adjacent calculators—such as NPV, depreciation, or broader statistical inference—that agents could work around or obtain elsewhere.
