Skip to main content
Glama

gapup-mcp

by io.github.getgapup

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYesTax mode to invoke.
asyncNoIf 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.
queryYesMode-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').
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. Required for gst when query is ambiguous. Used in transfer_pricing_benchmark for country-specific OECD adjustments.
transaction_typeNoTransaction type for signal generation. 'digital' triggers GST/sales-tax digital goods warnings.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gstNo
modeYes
statusYes
signalsYes
sourcesYes
oss_iossNo
sales_taxNo
vat_lookupNo
quality_scoreYes
transfer_pricingNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: keyless access, optional HMRC API key, 24h cache TTL, and the P0/P1/P2 compliance signal semantics. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives a clear picture of side effects and dependencies.

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 long but densely packed with essential specifics (e.g., 27 EU countries, EUR 10k threshold, 20+ sectors). It is organized by numbered modes, making it scannable. While a bit heavy, every clause contributes value; no fluff.

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?

The tool is complex with 5 modes and 5 parameters. The description covers all modes, their regional scope, output signals (P0/P1/P2), authentication needs, and caching. With an output schema present, return format is not needed. Highly complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, and each parameter already has detailed mode-specific examples in the schema. The description reinforces mode context but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the tool's purpose: multi-jurisdiction tax compliance data. It lists five specific modes (VAT lookup, sales tax, GST, OSS/IOSS eligibility, transfer pricing benchmark) with concrete details, distinguishing it from generic tax tools. The verb+resource pattern is strong and the scope is explicit.

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 clear context on when to use each mode (e.g., 'EU VAT numbers live via VIES SOAP', 'US state sales tax rates', 'APAC GST rates') and notes keyless operation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All gapup-mcp toolsInspect
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

C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Over 50 tools share the identical template 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise' with similar French descriptions and reference cases, making their boundaries indistinguishable. Clusters like competitor_intel, competitive_deep_dive, competitor_moves, competitor_profiles, competitor_pricing_radar, competitor_pricing_scrape, and competitor_recommendations heavily overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency1/5

Names are chaotic: mix of French and English, snake_case and camelCase, verb_noun, noun, and adjective forms with no uniform pattern. Examples like 'bp_narratif', 'content_enrichment', 'ai_governance_full_report_async', and 'job_result' show no coherent naming convention.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond any reasonable MCP server scope, creating an overwhelming selection burden for agents. This count vastly exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and makes navigation impractical.

Completeness2/5

While the server covers many business domains, it lacks lifecycle operations (e.g., no update/delete tools for the deliverables it generates) and the input specifications are vague ('documented case fields' without documentation), creating functional dead ends. The sheer breadth does not compensate for these gaps.

Resources