mcp-knowledge

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: returns P0/P1/P2 compliance signals with threat levels, cache TTL of 24h, and the asynchronous option via 'async' parameter. It also mentions optional key for UK VAT, which is a behavioral nuance not covered by annotations. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph with numbered modes for clarity. It is dense but efficient, front-loading the purpose and covering all essential aspects (modes, inputs, key requirements, cache, output signals) without unnecessary words.

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 complexity (5 modes, 5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all user-facing aspects: mode details, query format requirements, optional country parameter, async capability, key requirements, cache TTL, and output signal classification. The output schema handles return structure, so no further detail needed.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each mode and providing examples for the 'query' parameter (e.g., 'FR40303265045' for vat_lookup). It also clarifies the 'country' parameter's role in gst and transfer_pricing_benchmark, going beyond the schema's generic description.

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 provides multi-jurisdiction tax compliance data for international SaaS, cross-border marketplaces, and expat services, with five distinct modes enumerated (vat_lookup, sales_tax, gst, oss_ioss_eligibility, transfer_pricing_benchmark). Each mode is explicitly linked to a specific use case, and the tool is differentiated from siblings by its comprehensive coverage and keyless access.

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 specifies five modes and their input requirements, implying when to use each (e.g., 'vat_lookup — validate EU VAT numbers live'). It also notes the optional HMRC_VAT_API_KEY for UK validation and states 'Keyless — no API key required', providing practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or contrast with sibling tools, missing a full when-not scenario.

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

All mcp-knowledge 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

C2.8/5.0

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.

tax_compliance_multi

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources