gst_from_inclusiveExtract GST from a tax-inclusive amount by supplying the gross MRP and slab rate to split out the base price and tax component.
Extract GST out of a tax-inclusive (MRP-style) amount.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Gross amount that already includes GST. | |
| rate_percent | Yes | GST slab rate - one of 0.25, 3, 5, 12, 18, 28. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. For a stateless arithmetic helper there is little risk to disclose, and 'tax-inclusive (MRP-style)' usefully characterizes the operation, but nothing is said about output shape, rounding, or precondition on the tax slab.
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?
A single, fully front-loaded sentence with no filler. The qualifying phrase is placed immediately after the noun it qualifies, so nothing needs re-reading.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with only two required scalar parameters the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to gst_split and any rounding/precision expectation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The 'tax-inclusive (MRP-style)' phrasing marginally reinforces the meaning of 'amount' but adds no new semantics beyond the existing schema text.
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?
States a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('GST out of a tax-inclusive amount'), and the parenthetical 'MRP-style' pins down the exact scenario. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling gst_split, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The description implies the input is already inclusive of tax, but an agent is left to infer which of the sibling GST tools (e.g. gst_split) handles the exclusive-side case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.