Intangible Asset Valuation MCP Server

Cost Approach

valuation_cost_approach

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cost approach: depreciated reproduction cost from a cost breakdown and depreciated replacement cost with equivalent utility, both reduced by obsolescence. Method selects the formula. Use when no income or market evidence exists, or to corroborate income and market indications for internally developed intangibles. For income-based indications use valuation_income_methods; for market evidence use valuation_market_approach. Per method: reproduction_cost needs development_costs (optional: obsolescence_factors); replacement_cost needs current_cost (optional: obsolescence_factors). obsolescence_factors values are decimals that are summed and applied to the cost base; omit them for no obsolescence. Only method is required; other parameters are method-dependent, so supply those named for the selected method and omit the rest (documented defaults apply where defined). Pure arithmetic: no I/O and no external calls, and numeric results are returned rounded to 2 decimals. Parameters belonging to other methods of this tool are accepted and ignored. Supplying an unknown method, or leaving unset a parameter that the chosen method requires, returns an error instead of a value.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`method`	Yes	Formula to apply. Options: reproduction_cost = Sum of cost categories less total obsolescence.; replacement_cost = Current cost of equivalent utility less obsolescence.
`current_cost`	No	Current cost to replace the asset with equivalent utility, in currency units.
`development_costs`	No	Cost breakdown by category, e.g. {"r_and_d": 1000000, "testing": 250000}, in currency units.
`obsolescence_factors`	No	Obsolescence factors, e.g. {"functional": 0.10, "technological": 0.15, "economic": 0.05}.

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).
`formula_reference`	No	Mathematical formula or reference applied.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: declares pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, rounding to 2 decimals, that parameters of other methods are accepted and ignored, and that an unknown method or a missing required method-parameter yields an error rather than a value. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 core definition and routing, then method-specific requirements and edge-case behavior. Dense but each sentence carries information; the method-dependent parameter detail makes it longer than strictly minimal, without waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers method selection, required vs optional parameters, defaults, error conditions, and the arithmetic nature of the tool. Complete for a four-parameter computational tool.

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%, but the description still adds real meaning: which parameters each method requires, that obsolescence_factors are decimals summed and applied to the cost base, that omission means no obsolescence, and that unneeded parameters should be omitted. Slightly less precise on how development_costs categories aggregate, but clearly above the 3 baseline.

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 the specific resource (cost approach valuation) and the two concrete formulas it computes (depreciated reproduction cost, depreciated replacement cost). It also distinguishes itself from valuation_income_methods and valuation_market_approach, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('no income or market evidence exists, or to corroborate income and market indications') and names the two alternative sibling tools with their conditions. Nothing is left to inference.

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.