501c3.HELP nonprofit compliance

get_state_requirements

Nonprofit compliance requirements for one US state, from 501c3.help's sourced records: formation, governance, charitable solicitation registration, reporting, tax and employment. Every record carries its official citation and a verification status. Records marked review_required are unsettled and must be presented as such, never as a settled rule. Optionally narrow by topic. Returns a limited number of records, not the whole state.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "get_state_requirements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	Yes	State name or two-letter abbreviation, for example 'Kansas' or 'KS'.
`topic`	No	Optional topic filter, matched loosely, for example 'solicitation', 'reporting', 'tax'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses the sourcing/citation model, the verification status field, the review_required unsettled caveat, and the important limitation that only a subset of records is returned rather than the whole state. It omits auth requirements and any pagination details for retrieving the remainder.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then layered caveats in short sentences. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on domain list and the citation/verification sentence could be tightened.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (sourced records with citations and verification status), the correctness caveat for review_required, and the truncation behavior. Missing only the mechanics of fetching the remainder and any freshness/coverage limits.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples, and the description adds only that topic narrowing is optional and loose-matched. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: nonprofit compliance requirements for one US state, with an explicit enumeration of the domains covered (formation, governance, solicitation, reporting, tax, employment). The phrase 'one US state' implicitly separates it from the compare_states sibling, but no sibling is named outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a usage hint ('Optionally narrow by topic') and a presentation rule for review_required records, which is real guidance for how to use the results. It stops short of saying when to reach for this tool over get_filing_deadlines or compare_states, so selection is left largely to inference.

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

All 501c3.HELP nonprofit compliance tools Inspect

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

Need Help?