Skip to main content
Glama

tax-retirement

by io.github.herve-coulon
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fiscal_ifi

Read-onlyIdempotent

Impôt sur la fortune immobilière (IFI) — IFI dû à partir du patrimoine immobilier taxable : limitation des dettes (art. 974, patrimoine > 5 M€), barème progressif (art. 977, seuil d'assujettissement 1,3 M€ mais barème dès 800 k€), décote (base 1,3–1,4 M€). Le plafonnement art. 979 (IFI + IR + PS ≤ 75 % des revenus) est appliqué SEULEMENT si revenu_foyer et autres_impots_annuels sont fournis — sinon l'IFI est rendu avant plafonnement. Version stateless : la base et les dettes sont des entrées (aucune lecture de dossier). (sources: CGI art. 964 (seuil 1,3 M€) ; CGI art. 977 (barème + décote) ; CGI art. 974 (limitation des dettes) ; CGI art. 979 (plafonnement 75 %))

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dettesNoDettes déductibles rattachées à l'immobilier taxable (€). La limitation art. 974 s'applique au-delà de 5 M€ de patrimoine.
revenu_foyerNoRevenus du foyer de l'année (€). Fourni → déclenche le plafonnement art. 979. Absent → IFI rendu avant plafonnement.
residence_principaleNoValeur VÉNALE de la résidence principale (€), à ne PAS inclure dans patrimoine_immobilier_taxable : l'abattement de 30 % (art. 973 I CGI) est appliqué par le calcul.
autres_impots_annuelsNoIR + prélèvements sociaux + CEHR déjà dus au titre de l'année (€), pour le calcul du plafonnement art. 979. Ignoré si revenu_foyer absent.
patrimoine_immobilier_taxableYesValeur du patrimoine immobilier taxable BRUT (avant dettes) entrant dans l'assiette IFI (€) — résidence principale après abattement 30 %, biens locatifs, SCPI part immobilière, etc.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / residence_principale
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Valeur VÉNALE de la résidence principale (€), à ne PAS inclure dans patrimoine_immobilier_taxable : l'abattement de 30 % (art. 973 I CGI) est appliqué par le calcul.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine behavioral detail — statelessness, the conditional plafonnement gating, and the fact that the 800k€ barème starts below the 1.3M€ threshold. It does not describe the exact output shape, but the logic disclosures go beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and legal framework, and every clause carries substantive information (thresholds, conditional capping, stateless note). It is dense with CGI citations but not padded, so length is justified for a rules-heavy tax calculation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return behavior; it does so by clarifying that the IFI is returned pre-plafonnement when revenu_foyer is absent. Combined with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly, with only the exact result fields unspecified.

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%, so the schema already documents dettes, revenu_foyer, residence_principale, etc. The description references the base and dettes as inputs and explains the plafonnement trigger, but this largely duplicates what is already in the parameter descriptions — 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?

States a specific verb (compute) and resource (IFI tax) with the exact legal basis (CGI art. 964, 977, 974, 979) and scope. Sibling tools like fiscal_impot_revenu or fiscal_prelevements_sociaux are clearly distinct from this real-estate-wealth tax calculator.

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?

Explicitly states the condition under which the art. 979 plafonnement is applied (revenu_foyer and autres_impots_annuels supplied) versus when IFI is returned before capping. It also clarifies the stateless model (inputs, no dossier read), though it does not name sibling tools or when to prefer them.

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

All tax-retirement toolsInspect
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.

Resources