Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
itr-mcp

itr-mcp

by Sagargupta16
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Compare old vs new tax regime

compare_regimes
Read-only

Compute tax under both old and new regimes for the same income to get a side-by-side comparison, recommended regime, and savings amount.

Instructions

Compute tax under BOTH regimes for the same income and return a side-by-side comparison with the recommended regime and the savings amount. Pass the old-regime deductions you could actually claim; the new regime ignores them.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fyNoFiscal year, e.g. '2025-26' (AY 2026-27)2025-26
ageBandNoAge band: below60, senior (60-79), superSenior (80+). Affects old-regime exemption only.below60
ltcg112ANoLong-term capital gains under section 112A in INR, BEFORE the 1.25L exemption
stcg111ANoShort-term capital gains under section 111A (listed equity, STT paid) in INR
deductionsNoOld regime only: total Chapter VI-A deductions (80C, 80D, ...) in INR, EXCLUDING employer NPS (use employerNps80CCD2). Ignored under the new regime.
otherIncomeNoOther normal-rate income in INR (interest, net rent, etc.)
salaryIncomeNoGross salary income in INR, before standard deduction
employerNps80CCD2NoEmployer's NPS contribution under s.80CCD(2) in INR. Allowed in BOTH regimes (the one Chapter VI-A deduction 115BAC keeps); capped at 14% of salary in the new regime, 10% (private) / 14% (government) in the old.
housePropertyLossNoLoss under the head house property as a POSITIVE number (e.g. s.24(b) home-loan interest on a self-occupied house). Old regime: set off against other heads up to Rs 2 lakh (s.71(3A)), rest carried forward. New regime: no inter-head set-off (s.115BAC(2)), reported as carried forward.
governmentEmployerNoCentral/State Government employer (raises the old-regime 80CCD(2) cap to 14%)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.3
  2. Removedv0.3.0
  3. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior: it returns a side-by-side comparison, a recommended regime and the savings amount, and clarifies that the new regime ignores old-regime deductions. It does not spell out assumptions or output field details, but it adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the computation and return, followed by a compact input rule. No repeated or filler content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 10-parameter tax comparison tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to select and call it: both regimes, same income, comparison output, recommendation, savings, and deduction asymmetry. The rich schema covers parameter detail, though exact response fields and assumptions are not spelled out.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters, including age band, NPS caps, house-property loss treatment, and deduction regime. The description only adds the high-level instruction to pass claimable old-regime deductions and that the new regime ignores them, which largely repeats schema notes. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Compute tax) and resource (both regimes for the same income) and names the return (side-by-side comparison, recommended regime, savings). The 'BOTH regimes' framing distinguishes it from the single-regime sibling compute_tax, even though that sibling is not named.

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?

The use case is implied: compare both regimes and get a recommendation. It also gives a deduction-input rule, but it never states when to choose this over compute_tax or when not to use it, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools