Intangible Asset Valuation MCP Server

Goodwill & Purchase Price Allocation

valuation_goodwill_ppa

Read-onlyIdempotent

Goodwill and purchase price allocation: goodwill as the residual, a full PPA waterfall across identified intangibles, and useful-life estimation. Method selects the formula. Use for ASC 805 / IFRS 3 business combinations; purchase_price_allocation allocates consideration to identified intangibles with the remainder to goodwill. For subsequent goodwill and intangible impairment testing use valuation_impairment; for individual intangible fair values feed valuation_ip, valuation_technology or valuation_customer into the allocation. Per method: goodwill needs purchase_price + fair_value_net_identifiable_assets; purchase_price_allocation needs purchase_price + tangible_assets_fv + identified_intangibles (optional: liabilities_fv); useful_life needs asset_type (optional: legal_life, economic_factors, obsolescence_rate). identified_intangibles values are summed before goodwill is taken as the residual; liabilities_fv reduces net identifiable assets. Only method is required; all other parameters are method-dependent — supply those the selected method names and omit the rest (defaults apply where defined). Rates and premiums are decimals (0.10 = 10%). Pure arithmetic: no I/O and no external calls, rounded to 2 decimals; parameters belonging to other methods are accepted and ignored. An unknown method, or a missing method-required parameter, returns an error instead of a value.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`method`	Yes	Formula to apply. Options: goodwill = Goodwill = purchase price - fair value of net identifiable assets.; purchase_price_allocation = Allocate consideration across identified intangibles.; useful_life = Estimate economic/legal useful life of an intangible.
`asset_type`	No	Asset type, e.g. "patent", "trademark", "software", "customer_list".
`legal_life`	No	Legal protection period in years (overrides the asset-type default).
`liabilities_fv`	No	Fair value of assumed liabilities, in currency units.
`purchase_price`	No	Total consideration / purchase price, in currency units.
`economic_factors`	No	Economic adjustment factors, e.g. {"market_growth": 0.05, "competition": 0.4, "tech_change": 0.1}.
`obsolescence_rate`	No	Annual obsolescence rate as a decimal in [0,1].
`tangible_assets_fv`	No	Fair value of tangible assets, in currency units.
`identified_intangibles`	No	Identified intangibles, each {name, value} or {name, fair_value}.
`fair_value_net_identifiable_assets`	No	Fair value of net identifiable assets, in currency units.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Error message when the call fails.
`steps`	No	Intermediate calculation steps for traceability (one string per step).
`value`	Yes	Computed valuation, rate, or metric.
`method`	No	Formula / method name that produced the result.
`assumptions`	No	Modelling assumptions applied (list of strings or key/value object).
`defaults_applied`	No	Optional parameters that were not supplied, so their documented defaults were used.
`formula_reference`	No	Mathematical formula or reference applied.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent/no-network profile, and the description goes further: it discloses decimal conventions, that parameters of non-selected methods are silently ignored, that all other params are method-dependent, and that unknown/missing method-required params return an error rather than a value.

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 purpose then method routing then per-method parameters; dense but every sentence carries operational information. Slightly long and clause-heavy, but not redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers method selection, per-method inputs, defaults, error behavior, and numeric conventions — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning the schema cannot express: which parameters each method requires (goodwill needs purchase_price + fair_value_net_identifiable_assets), which are optional, that identified_intangibles are summed before the residual, and that liabilities_fv reduces net identifiable assets.

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+resource ('goodwill as the residual', 'a full PPA waterfall', 'useful-life estimation') and explicitly names what it is not for by routing impairment to valuation_impairment and component fair values to valuation_ip/technology/customer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('ASC 805 / IFRS 3 business combinations'), when-not-to-use (subsequent impairment testing), and names the exact sibling tools to feed components into the allocation.

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

All Intangible Asset Valuation MCP Server tools Inspect

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.