Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

ma_tax_efficiency_mapper

Read-onlyIdempotent

For CFOs evaluating cross-border M&A deals: analyzes tax efficiency by mapping withholding tax rates, transfer pricing regulations, and permanent establishment risks across specified jurisdictions. Inputs include acquirer/target jurisdictions, deal structure, and transaction value. Outputs jurisdiction-specific tax exposure, efficiency scores, and risk flags. Uses World Bank Tax Rates API, IMF SDR data, and SEC EDGAR filings for corporate tax disclosures. — pass async:true REQUIRED to avoid x402 timeout.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
deal_structureNoType of M&A transaction structure
transaction_valueNoDeal value in USD millions
target_jurisdictionYesISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code of the target entity
acquirer_jurisdictionYesISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code of the acquiring entity
include_transfer_pricingNoWhether to analyze transfer pricing risks

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesNo
warningsNo
tax_treatiesNo
efficiency_scoreNo
target_tax_ratesNo
acquirer_tax_ratesNo
transfer_pricing_riskNo
permanent_establishment_riskNo

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: data sources (World Bank, IMF, SEC EDGAR) and an async requirement to avoid timeout. This goes beyond annotations but doesn't cover failure modes or rate limits.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and audience, then inputs, outputs, data sources, and async note. Each sentence adds value, but the async requirement is repeated from the schema parameter description, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 availability of output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, data sources, and async behavior. It is complete for the tool's complexity, leaving no obvious gaps.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description summarizes inputs (jurisdictions, deal structure, transaction value) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes tax efficiency for cross-border M&A deals, mapping withholding tax rates, transfer pricing regulations, and permanent establishment risks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ma_arbitrage_hunter or ma_deal_screener, which focus on different aspects.

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 targets CFOs evaluating cross-border M&A deals, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, 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 mcp-knowledge 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources