TaxCompass — Italian tax tools
Server Details
Sourced Italian tax tools for AI agents: cited primary-source search + a deterministic tax engine.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: 'calculate_italian_tax' computes tax for one regime, 'compare_italian_regimes' does side-by-side comparison, 'list_tax_sources' lists available sources, and 'search_italian_tax_sources' performs search. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_italian_tax_related_noun' pattern using snake_case (e.g., 'calculate_italian_tax', 'compare_italian_regimes', 'list_tax_sources', 'search_italian_tax_sources'). Verbs are descriptive and uniform.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of Italian tax calculations, comparisons, and legal source searching. Each tool earns its place without overloading the surface.
The tool set covers the core functionality of the domain: single regime calculation, multi-regime comparison, source listing, and full-text search. There are no obvious gaps for the stated 'Italian tax tools' purpose.
Available Tools
4 toolscalculate_italian_taxARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Compute exact Italian tax for one regime at a given annual revenue.
Deterministic calculation (not an estimate): substitute/income tax, INPS
social contributions, net income, and effective rate. `breakdown.eligible`
is False when the regime doesn't apply to the inputs (e.g. forfettario above
the €85k cap) — present that as "not eligible", not as a real option.
Args:
revenue_eur: Gross annual revenue in EUR.
regime: One of `forfettario_5`, `forfettario_15`, `ordinario`,
`ordinario_impatriati`.
coefficient: Forfettario coefficiente di redditività (0.40–0.86, set by
the activity's ATECO group). Omit for the professional-services
default (0.78). Ignored by non-forfettario regimes.
cost_ratio: Deductible costs as a fraction of revenue (0–1), used by
ordinario/impatriati. Ignored by forfettario.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regime | No | forfettario_15 | |
| cost_ratio | No | ||
| coefficient | No | ||
| revenue_eur | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| breakdown | Yes | Full numeric breakdown (taxes, contributions, net, effective rate). |
| disclaimer | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and deterministic. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Deterministic calculation (not an estimate)' and explaining the behavior of the `eligible` flag, as well as parameter interactions (e.g., coefficient ignored by non-forfettario). This adds significant context beyond the annotations.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter explanations in a docstring style. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient to parse.
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 complexity of Italian tax calculation with multiple regimes and parameters, the description covers inputs and key behavioral aspects (deterministic, eligible flag). An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. It does not cover error handling or edge cases (e.g., negative revenue), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a deterministic calculation tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and delivers excellently. It explains each parameter in detail: allowed regime values, coefficient range and default when omitted, cost_ratio range, and revenue_eur meaning. This adds critical semantics that the schema alone (which has only types and defaults) does not provide.
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?
Description clearly states 'Compute exact Italian tax for one regime' with specific verb and resource. It implies the tool is for single-regime calculations, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_italian_regimes' which likely compares multiple regimes. Purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
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?
Description notes that it is a deterministic calculation (not an estimate) and provides guidance on interpreting the `eligible` field, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `compare_italian_regimes` or `list_tax_sources`. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compare_italian_regimesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Compare all Italian regimes side by side at one revenue level.
Runs forfettario (5% & 15%), ordinario, and ordinario + impatriati through
the deterministic engine and returns them sorted by net income (best first),
each with its full breakdown and eligibility.
Args:
revenue_eur: Gross annual revenue in EUR.
coefficient: Forfettario coefficiente di redditività (0.40–0.86); omit
for the professional-services default (0.78).
cost_ratio: Deductible costs as a fraction of revenue (0–1) for the
ordinario regimes.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost_ratio | No | ||
| coefficient | No | ||
| revenue_eur | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | One breakdown per regime, best net income first. |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| revenue_eur | Yes | Gross annual revenue (EUR) the regimes were evaluated at. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds that the tool runs a deterministic engine, sorts results by net income (best first), and returns full breakdown and eligibility. This goes beyond annotations but doesn't detail potential limitations or output size.
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 concise: a one-sentence overview, then a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or extraneous content.
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 output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers behavior and return structure (sorted, with breakdown/eligibility). It mentions all regimes and parameters. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or edge cases like invalid revenue values.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: revenue_eur as gross annual revenue, coefficient with range (0.40–0.86) and default 0.78, cost_ratio as fraction 0–1. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though no examples or formatting details are given.
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 clearly states the tool compares Italian regimes side by side at a single revenue level. It specifies the regimes included (forfettario 5% & 15%, ordinario, ordinario + impatriati) and the output sorted by net income. This differentiates it from siblings like calculate_italian_tax (single regime) and list/search tools.
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 implicitly indicates usage for comparing all regimes at one revenue level. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it should be used when a side-by-side comparison is desired, not for single-regime calculation (use calculate_italian_tax).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_tax_sourcesARead-onlyInspect
List the primary sources the corpus can search, and what each covers.
Use this to discover the valid `sources` filter values for
`search_italian_tax_sources` and to understand the corpus's coverage.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| sources | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. The description adds that it returns a list with coverage details but doesn't disclose further behavior. Adequate for a simple list tool.
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?
Two concise sentences: first defines purpose, second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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?
With zero parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and purpose.
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?
No parameters exist in the schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description provides meaning by explaining what the tool returns, adding value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states that the tool lists primary tax sources and their coverage. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning its use for discovering filter values for search_italian_tax_sources.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: to discover valid sources filter values and understand corpus coverage. Implicitly contrasts with search_italian_tax_sources for searching within sources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_italian_tax_sourcesARead-onlyInspect
Search TaxCompass's primary-source corpus and return passages to cite.
Hybrid semantic + keyword retrieval over Italian tax & company-law primary
sources: Normattiva (statute), Agenzia delle Entrate (circolari & guidance),
INPS (social security), pinned tax-year tables (IRPEF brackets, INPS rates,
forfettario thresholds & coefficienti di redditività), the ATECO 2025 code
catalogue, and EU/treaty sources.
Each result carries a `chunk_id`, `source`, and (usually) a `url`. Cite the
`url` and quote the `text`; do not assert Italian tax facts the passages
don't support. Queries work in any language, but Italian keywords improve
recall against the (Italian) legal corpus.
Args:
query: What to search for. Keyword-dense Italian phrasing works best.
sources: Optional subset to restrict to (see `list_tax_sources` for keys).
Omit to search everything. Unknown keys are ignored.
k: Max passages to return (1–12).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| sources | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of passages returned. |
| query | Yes | The query that was run. |
| passages | Yes | Retrieved passages, most relevant first. |
| disclaimer | Yes | Usage + citation guidance. |
| sources_searched | Yes | Source keys actually searched (after filtering). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the hybrid semantic+keyword retrieval method, lists specific sources, and details the result fields (chunk_id, source, url, text). It warns not to assert unsupported facts. Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world, and the description adds behavioral context without contradiction.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args section. It is detailed but not verbose, and the key information is front-loaded. Minor improvement could integrate the Args section more naturally, but it is still effective.
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 tool's complexity (multiple source types, three parameters, output schema), the description is thorough. It covers the search scope, result format, and usage tips. With an output schema existing, it does not need to detail return values further, but it already provides sufficient guidance.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description's 'Args' section fully explains each parameter: query (keyword-dense Italian), sources (optional subset from list_tax_sources), and k (max passages 1-12 with default 6). This compensates entirely.
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 clearly states that the tool searches TaxCompass's primary-source corpus and returns passages to cite. It specifies the verb (search, return) and resource (primary-source corpus). The sibling tools are for calculation, comparison, and listing sources, so this tool is well-distinguished.
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 provides context on when to use the tool: to find and cite passages from Italian tax and company-law sources. It advises using Italian keywords for better recall and mentions that results should be cited with URL and text. It also references sibling tool 'list_tax_sources' for source keys. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!