F
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceEnables AI assistants to help compile the Italian Modello 730 income tax return by providing IRPEF calculations, deduction tools, and tax rule guidance.
12
23
TaxCompass — Italian tax tools
Server Details
Sourced Italian tax tools for AI agents: cited primary-source search + a deterministic tax engine.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regime | No | forfettario_15 | |
| cost_ratio | No | ||
| coefficient | No | ||
| revenue_eur | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| breakdown | Yes | Full numeric breakdown (taxes, contributions, net, effective rate). |
| disclaimer | Yes |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses deterministic calculation, the exact output components (tax, INPS, net income, effective rate), and the special meaning of breakdown.eligible being False for inapplicable regimes. It also explains parameter-ignoring behavior per regime, which is valuable non-obvious behavioral information.
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?
The description is well-structured with a summary sentence, a behavioral note, and an Args section. It is somewhat redundant with 'exact' and 'deterministic (not an estimate)' appearing early, but every sentence adds useful information about behavior or parameters. It remains compact relative to the complexity of the tool.
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?
Given that an output schema is present, the description does not need to document return values. It covers all four parameters, regimes, eligibility behavior, and per-parameter applicability. The tool's complexity is substantial, but the description provides enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for parameter documentation. It explains revenue_eur, enumerates the allowed regime values, gives the coefficient range, its ATECO context, the omit-default behavior, and the cost_ratio range and applicability. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compute exact Italian tax for one regime at a given annual revenue.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'for one regime' rather than comparison, listing, or searching tax sources. The deterministic calculation behavior further sharpens the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to call this tool: to compute exact tax for a single regime given revenue, with explicit detail on regime-specific parameters and eligibility. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'one regime' framing implicitly separates it from compare_italian_regimes. This is strong but not maximally 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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost_ratio | No | ||
| coefficient | No | ||
| revenue_eur | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON 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. |
TDQS
A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool runs a deterministic engine, sorts results by net income best-first, and returns full breakdowns and eligibility. This adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, and does not contradict them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact behavioral summary and an organized Args list. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
Complete for a three-parameter comparison tool with an output schema: it covers inputs, defaults, return behavior, and sorting. No critical context needed for correct invocation 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description defines all three parameters with units, ranges, defaults, and regime applicability. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 (compare) and resource (Italian regimes), and further specifies it runs all three regimes and returns them sorted by net income. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculate_italian_tax, which likely handles a single regime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys the use case: side-by-side comparison of all regimes at a single revenue level. It does not explicitly name calculate_italian_tax as an alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| sources | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it returns list of sources and their coverage, and that it helps discover valid filter values for a sibling tool, providing full behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no waste. First sentence states purpose, second explains usage. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
For a 0-parameter tool with output schema and helpful annotations, description fully covers purpose and context, including relationship to sibling 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?
Input schema has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds nothing about parameters as there are none.
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?
Description clearly states it lists primary sources and what each covers, and explains its use for discovering valid filter values for search_italian_tax_sources. This distinguishes it from siblings (calculate, compare, search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly guides to use for discovering valid sources filter values and understanding corpus coverage. Does not specify when not to use, but context is clear.
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).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| sources | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON 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). |
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it uses hybrid semantic+keyword retrieval, returns chunk_id, source, url, and text, and warns against asserting unsupported facts. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Well-structured with a clear opening summary, followed by details on sources, output, and parameters. Front-loaded with purpose. While thorough, it is concise for the amount of information provided.
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?
Given the tool's complexity, 0% schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers retrieval method, output fields, parameters, and citation instructions. No gaps identified.
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 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: query (keyword-dense Italian phrasing), sources (optional, refer to list_tax_sources), and k (max passages 1-12). Adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's default values and types.
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?
The description clearly states the tool searches TaxCompass's primary-source corpus and returns passages for citation. It lists specific sources (Normattiva, Agenzia delle Entrate, INPS, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings like calculate_italian_tax and compare_italian_regimes by focusing on retrieval and citation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on query language (Italian keywords improve recall), when to use (to find citations), and how to use parameters. It also instructs the agent not to assert unsupported facts. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Related MCP Connectors
Verifiable US tax oracle for AI agents: cited, machine-checkable federal and state tax computation
Italy FatturaPA invoices for AI agents: build FPR12 XML, transmit to the SdI, query status.
EU/UK VAT compliance for AI agents: number validation, rate lookups, reverse-charge checks.
Regulatory intelligence for AI agents across jurisdictions
Related MCP Servers
OpenAccountantsofficial
AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceOpen-source, accountant-verified tax computation skills for AI agents. 261+ skills across 172+ jurisdictions covering income tax, VAT/GST, payroll, corporate tax, crypto, and cross-border planning. Every skill is verified section-by-section by licensed CPAs and chartered accountants. 3 tools (list_skills, get_skill, get_skill_sections) and 1 prompt (skill-review).3362AGPL 3.0- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceStructured business intelligence for AI agents. 5.5M verified entities across 34 countries, 40.3M BORME mercantile acts, EU VAT validation, GLEIF, healthcare registries. 20 tools.61MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceProvides access to official Spanish fiscal data and tools based on AEAT and BOE sources, covering income tax, VAT, and regional deductions. It enables AI assistants to answer tax-related queries and verify filing deadlines using verified information.103113MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculate targets one specific regime, compare evaluates all regimes side-by-side, and the two source tools cleanly separate listing available sources from searching their contents. There is no realistic risk of selecting the wrong tool for a task.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb-first pattern, e.g. calculate_italian_tax, compare_italian_regimes, search_italian_tax_sources. The one minor deviation is list_tax_sources, which omits the 'italian' descriptor that appears in the other source/search tool.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is a well-scoped size for this server's purpose: two calculation/regime tools and two source-discovery/search tools. Each tool has a distinct and necessary role, with no redundant or filler tools.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the main workflows: single-regime calculation, cross-regime comparison, source discovery, and corpus search. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tax-year selection and no direct tool for retrieving raw tax tables outside of search, but the source search tool can mitigate these.