taxcredit-engine
Server Details
Auditable US clean-energy tax-credit scenarios for 45Q, 45V, 45Y, 48E, and 45X.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: server info, rule pack listing, rule pack details, credit calculation, and result verification. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., calculate_tax_credit, list_rule_packs). No deviations.
5 tools is well-scoped for a tax credit engine covering discovery, calculation, and verification. Neither too few nor excessive.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: list available credits, get rule details, calculate a credit, verify results, and server info. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
5 toolscalculate_tax_creditAInspect
Calculate an auditable tax-credit scenario. credit is 45Q, 45V, 45Y, 48E, or 45X. facts must contain the explicit credit-specific eligibility facts; missing facts return indeterminate. This is not tax or filing advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| facts | Yes | ||
| credit | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is auditable, returns indeterminate for missing facts, and is not advice. This is adequate but lacks detail on side effects, authorization requirements, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value (purpose, requirements, disclaimer). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (tax credits), sparse input schema, and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, required inputs, behavior on missing data, and a disclaimer. It could mention how to interpret indeterminate results or audit tracking, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it lists valid credit values (45Q, 45V, etc.) and explains that 'facts' must be credit-specific eligibility facts. This compensates for the generic schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Calculate an auditable tax-credit scenario' and lists specific credit types (45Q, 45V, etc.). It clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'verify_tax_credit_result', though the name implies a calculation vs. verification function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance that 'facts must contain the explicit credit-specific eligibility facts; missing facts return indeterminate' and includes a disclaimer. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
describe_agentAInspect
Return fleet-standard capabilities, version, and pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or permissions. It only mentions the return content, leaving the agent to infer safety. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, directly stating the tool's output. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is complete enough. It identifies the key output components.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'return' and the specific resources: 'fleet-standard capabilities, version, and pricing.' It distinctively separates from sibling tools like calculate_tax_credit and get_rule_pack, which focus on different domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool is simple (0 parameters) and likely a default for agent info, the description does not provide context like 'use this to get general agent info' or exclude scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_rule_packCInspect
Return the bundled rules and official source metadata for one credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credit | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It only implies a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it very concise. However, it is under-specified, missing important details that would justify its brevity. It is not wasteful but lacks completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately adequate. However, it does not reference the output schema or explain what 'bundled rules' entails, leaving gaps that could confuse an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the `credit` parameter. The description adds minimal meaning by stating 'for one credit' but does not explain format, examples, or constraints, leaving the agent with ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns bundled rules and metadata for one credit, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling `list_rule_packs` which likely lists all packs, but lacks full context on what 'credit' refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings like `list_rule_packs` or `calculate_tax_credit`. The description does not indicate prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_rule_packsAInspect
List supported credits and the current bundled rule-pack digest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, side effects, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent uninformed beyond the basic listing action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb and key resources. It is maximally concise without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, list operation, and an output schema presumably describing return values), the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly names what is listed, though further context on 'supported credits' could slightly improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 when no parameters exist. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resources ('supported credits' and 'current bundled rule-pack digest'). It differentiates from siblings like 'get_rule_pack' which likely fetches a specific pack's details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_rule_pack' or 'calculate_tax_credit'. The description only states what it does without contextual usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_tax_credit_resultAInspect
Verify an engine result's audit_sha256. Pass the prior result object as JSON; any changed amount, fact, rule step, or source digest fails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result_json | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes verification behavior and failure conditions without annotations; no contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered; description adequately explains the verification purpose and failure criteria.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description clarifies that result_json should be the prior result object as JSON, adding necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description specifies verb 'verify' and resource 'engine result's audit_sha256', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like calculate_tax_credit or describe_agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states to pass prior result object as JSON and lists conditions that cause failure, providing clear context for when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!