Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Untax

by io.untax
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

audit_property_tax

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect retained county assessments and, where the supported evidence model permits, a draft building-assessment-equity comparison. Separate conditional rate scenarios from unavailable personal savings. Preserve unsupported building/classification, yard-item, source-conflict and unknown-year/rate holds. This tool does not certify market value, benefits, filing or payment readiness.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address_or_pidn": "<address_or_pidn>"
    },
    "name": "audit_property_tax"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressNoAlternative alias for property street address
county_keyNoOptional exact registered county adapter key, such as hamilton. Restricts lookup to that county and avoids unrelated county scans; conflicting explicit prefixes are rejected.
actual_sqftNoOptional: Actual measured living area in sq ft (to detect assessor CAMA square footage measurement errors)
address_or_pidnYesFull street address or county parcel ID (e.g. '3731 Anderson Ave, Chattanooga, TN' or '157I L 001')
notice_appraised_valueNoOptional: New proposed appraised value from reassessment notice (if differing from current online county roll)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral context beyond that — that unsupported conditions are surfaced as "holds" rather than resolved, that conditional rate scenarios are kept separate from unavailable personal savings, and that results are drafts, not certifications. However, the phrasing is jargon-heavy ("holds", "evidence model permits") and never states what happens on missing county data or how results are shaped.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short (three sentences) and the purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentences are dense with unexplained domain jargon — "separate conditional rate scenarios from unavailable personal savings" and "unknown-year/rate holds" do not parse cleanly for an agent. The final disclaimer sentence earns its place; the two middle sentences could be rewritten more plainly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only audit tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description should convey what an agent gets back; it gestures at draft comparisons, scenarios, and holds, but never defines those terms or the result structure. Combined with the absent when-to-use guidance, the definition is usable but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding and calling.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, including detailed notes on county_key scoping, actual_sqft for detecting CAMA measurement errors, and notice_appraised_value for reassessment notices, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes nothing about any of the five parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but leaves the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening clause names a verb and resource ("Inspect retained county assessments"), but the second clause pivots into vague phrasing ("where the supported evidence model permits, a draft building-assessment-equity comparison") that leaves the actual deliverable ambiguous. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like lookup_property_tax or get_property_assessment, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them from the description alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than lookup_property_tax, get_property_assessment, or the other audit_* tools. The only routing signal is negative scope ("does not certify market value, benefits, filing or payment readiness"), which tells the agent what the output is not, not when this tool is the right call.

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

All Untax toolsInspect
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.

Resources