Return the lodging / occupancy tax for one jurisdiction: state rate, local transient occupancy tax, the combined rate a guest pays, whether the cleaning fee is taxable, and whether the marketplace collects and remits. Every field is { value, source, confidence }; unconfirmed fields are null. Free, no API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | Jurisdiction slug (e.g. san-diego-ca) or a "City, ST" string. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the structure of returned fields (value, source, confidence) and notes that unconfirmed fields are null. It also states the tool is free and requires no API key. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or behavior for invalid inputs.
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, with the purpose stated upfront. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return structure and input format. However, it could mention error handling (e.g., what happens for invalid cities) or provide a brief example response.
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 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context by providing an example slug ('san-diego-ca') and clarifying that both slug and 'City, ST' strings are accepted. This adds value beyond the schema alone.
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 explicitly states that the tool returns lodging/occupancy tax for a jurisdiction, listing specific fields (state rate, local tax, combined rate, cleaning fee taxability, marketplace collection). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_str_eligibility and get_str_rules, which focus on different aspects of short-term rental regulations.
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 mentions the tool is free and requires no API key, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks statements about when not to use it or direct comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: eligibility check, tax lookup, rules retrieval, and jurisdiction listing. Descriptions clearly differentiate them with no overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_str_eligibility, get_lodging_tax, get_str_rules, list_jurisdictions), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing short-term rental regulation and tax information. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The tool set covers the core workflows: checking eligibility, retrieving taxes, obtaining rules, and listing jurisdictions. Minor additions like jurisdiction-level details or booking fee info could be added, but the surface is largely complete for the stated purpose.