GISDB

audit_surviving_spouse_portability

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit and generate Certificate of Surviving Spouse Homestead Exemption Portability & Transfer under Tex. Tax Code § 11.131(d) and Fla. Stat. § 196.081(3) to carry over certified tax exemption to a new primary residence.

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": {
      "surviving_spouse_name": "<surviving_spouse_name>",
      "deceased_veteran_name": "<deceased_veteran_name>",
      "prior_parcel_id": "<prior_parcel_id>",
      "prior_exemption_amount_usd": "<prior_exemption_amount_usd>",
      "new_parcel_id": "<new_parcel_id>",
      "is_unremarried": "<is_unremarried>"
    },
    "name": "audit_surviving_spouse_portability"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`new_parcel_id`	Yes	Parcel ID of new primary residence
`is_unremarried`	Yes	Whether surviving spouse remains unremarried (statutory prerequisite)
`new_county_name`	No	County of new primary residence
`prior_parcel_id`	Yes	Parcel ID of prior homestead
`prior_county_name`	No	County of prior homestead
`new_property_address`	No	Street address of new primary residence
`deceased_veteran_name`	Yes	Deceased qualifying disabled veteran legal name
`surviving_spouse_name`	Yes	Unremarried surviving spouse legal name
`new_property_market_value`	No	Appraised fair market value of new primary residence
`prior_exemption_amount_usd`	Yes	Certified dollar amount of prior property tax exemption

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the statutory framing and the carry-over objective, but leaves notable gaps for a tool whose name says 'generate': it does not say what the certificate output is, whether anything is filed or persisted, or what happens when statutory prerequisites fail.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action and legal basis front-loaded and no filler or repetition. It is legalese-heavy but every clause carries substantive content, and nothing is buried behind preamble.

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?

The description supplies the legal grounding and objective that the schema cannot, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given 10 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the main residual gap is the nature of the generated certificate artifact, which is a modest but real omission rather than a disqualifying one.

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 description coverage is 100% across all 10 properties, so the schema already explains each field, including the statutory prerequisite flag is_unremarried. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as required format for parcel IDs or what 'certified' means for prior_exemption_amount_usd, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb pair ('Audit and generate') and a specific resource ('Certificate of Surviving Spouse Homestead Exemption Portability & Transfer'), anchored to cited statutes (Tex. Tax Code § 11.131(d), Fla. Stat. § 196.081(3)). An agent can identify the domain precisely, though it does not explicitly distinguish this portability tool from neighbors like audit_surviving_spouse_vet_relief or audit_portfolio_batch.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The statutory citations imply the scenario (carrying an exemption to a new residence) but the agent must infer that this tool is inappropriate when the spouse is remarried or when no prior certified exemption exists.

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

All GISDB 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.