gapup-mcp

tax_compliance_multi

Read-onlyIdempotent

Multi-jurisdiction tax compliance data for international SaaS, cross-border marketplaces and expat services. Five modes: (1) vat_lookup — validate EU VAT numbers live via VIES SOAP (27 EU countries) or UK VRN via HMRC; (2) sales_tax — US state sales tax rates, nexus thresholds (post-Wayfair 2018), digital goods taxability for all 50 states + DC; (3) gst — APAC GST/SST/consumption-tax rates for IN, SG, AU, NZ, MY, JP, KR, TH, ID, PH, VN with reduced rates and registration thresholds; (4) oss_ioss_eligibility — EU One-Stop-Shop and Import-OSS eligibility analysis (EUR 10k OSS threshold, EUR 150 IOSS per-consignment); (5) transfer_pricing_benchmark — OECD/JTPF operating-margin benchmarks by industry and country (20+ sectors, country-specific adjustments). Returns P0/P1/P2 compliance signals: P0=invalid VAT used for zero-rating, P1=taxable digital goods detected/audit risk, P2=filing deadlines/nexus alerts. Keyless — no API key required. Optional env: HMRC_VAT_API_KEY for UK VAT live validation. Cache TTL 24h.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes	Tax mode to invoke.
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
`query`	Yes	Mode-specific query: vat_lookup -> VAT number with country prefix (e.g. 'FR40303265045'); sales_tax -> US state code or name (e.g. 'CA', 'California'); gst -> ISO country code (e.g. 'SG', 'IN', 'AU'); oss_ioss_eligibility -> annual EU B2C revenue in EUR or keyword (e.g. '5000', 'below'); transfer_pricing_benchmark -> industry name (e.g. 'manufacturing', 'saas', 'r&d').
`country`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. Required for gst when query is ambiguous. Used in transfer_pricing_benchmark for country-specific OECD adjustments.
`transaction_type`	No	Transaction type for signal generation. 'digital' triggers GST/sales-tax digital goods warnings.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gst`	No
`mode`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`signals`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`oss_ioss`	No
`sales_tax`	No
`vat_lookup`	No
`quality_score`	Yes
`transfer_pricing`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds valuable behavioral context: keyless access (no API key required), optional HMRC_VAT_API_KEY for UK VAT, 24h cache TTL, and the P0/P1/P2 signal taxonomy. It does not contradict annotations and enriches understanding beyond them.

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 well-structured with numbered modes and clear separation of concerns using bullet points. While lengthy, it earns its length by providing necessary detail for a complex multi-mode tool. Could be slightly more concise without losing clarity, but it's not verbose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 modes, 5 parameters, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: mode selection, parameter semantics, behavioral traits (keyless, cache), return signals (P0/P1/P2), and optional configuration. With an output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it is fully adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for each mode's query parameter (e.g., 'FR40303265045', 'CA', 'manufacturing') and clarifying the purpose of the country and transaction_type parameters. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 clearly states it provides multi-jurisdiction tax compliance data with five specific modes (vat_lookup, sales_tax, gst, oss_ioss_eligibility, transfer_pricing_benchmark). Each mode is distinctly described with its scope, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools, none of which are tax-related.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode, including example queries and specific contexts (e.g., EU VIES SOAP, US state sales tax). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but given the uniqueness of the tool and clear mode descriptions, this is a minor gap.

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

All gapup-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

C2.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources

Need Help?