ArcaTax

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_filing_profile

Set or update filing status, birth years, blindness flags, and dependents for a tax year; only supplied fields change, while dependents replace the whole list.

Instructions

Set filing status, birth years, blind flags and dependents. Only fields you pass are changed; passing dependents replaces the whole list (pass [] to record 'no dependents').

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update_filing_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tax_year`	No
`dependents`	No
`spouse_blind`	No
`filing_status`	No
`taxpayer_blind`	No
`spouse_birth_year`	No
`taxpayer_birth_year`	No
`can_be_claimed_as_dependent`	No
`lived_apart_from_spouse_all_year`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the two most consequential behaviors: merge semantics for omitted fields and full-list replacement for dependents, including the [] escape hatch to clear dependents. That is exactly the kind of footgun an agent cannot infer from the schema. It loses a point for not stating prerequisites (must a return exist for that tax_year?), reversibility, or permission requirements on this mutation.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the field inventory is front-loaded ahead of the update-semantics caveat. The important destructive detail about dependents is called out inline with backticks, making it easy to spot.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description adequately covers the primary fields. But for a 9-parameter mutation with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, leaving tax_year and two boolean tax-positioning fields undocumented leaves meaningful gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: filing_status, both birth years, both blind flags and dependents are named, while tax_year, can_be_claimed_as_dependent and lived_apart_from_spouse_all_year go unmentioned. It does add genuine meaning the schema lacks by defining replace-vs-merge behavior for dependents.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb ('Set') and enumerates the domains affected: filing status, birth years, blind flags, dependents. That lets an agent map most of the schema to intent immediately. It stops short of a 5 because it never names the target object as a 'filing profile/return' and offers no differentiation from the sibling update_other_inputs.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied through the partial-update contract ('Only fields you pass are changed'), which tells the agent it can call this incrementally without re-sending everything. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-something-else guidance, and no mention of update_other_inputs or which fields belong to which sibling.

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

Deploy Server