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; 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: 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.
`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).
`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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that only method is required and the rest are method-dependent, that foreign-method params are accepted and ignored, that unknown/missing params error out, and that results are rounded to 2 decimals with no I/O. This is rich behavioral context the structured fields do not carry.

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 routing, then per-method parameter needs. Dense but every sentence carries information; the long run-on per-method clause is the only mild readability cost.

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 the description need not explain returns, and it covers everything else an agent needs: scope standard, method branching, required vs optional params, error behavior, and determinism. Nothing material is missing for a 10-param, 3-method 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: per-method required params, that identified_intangibles are summed before goodwill is the residual, and that liabilities_fv reduces net identifiable assets. It stops short of syntax detail for nested economic_factors, hence not a 5.

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 residual, full PPA waterfall, useful-life estimation) and immediately distinguishes siblings by naming valuation_impairment for subsequent testing and valuation_ip/technology/customer for feeding individual intangibles. 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?

Explicitly scopes to ASC 805 / IFRS 3 business combinations and names the when-not alternative (subsequent impairment → valuation_impairment) plus the feeder tools. The method-selection sentence ('Method selects the formula') tells the agent exactly which branch to take.

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.