Skip to main content
Glama
UpstageAI

korean-tax-calc-mcp

by UpstageAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

deemed_interest

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute deemed interest for related-party advances and assess unfair transaction applicability, including the 300 million KRW/5% threshold, under Korean corporate tax law.

Instructions

가지급금 인정이자(적수 × 시가 이자율)와 부당행위계산 여부. 언제: 특수관계인 가지급금 이자와 부당행위 3억·5% 판정을 함께 구할 때. 입력: 가지급금 증감 [{date, amount(원, 대여 +, 회수 -)}] → movements, 사업연도 종료일(YYYY-MM-DD) → year_end, 시가 이자율(소수) → market_rate, 실제 이자율(소수) → charged_rate, 실제 받은 이자 금액(원) → received_interest, 사업연도 개시일(YYYY-MM-DD, 생략 시 year_end 기준 자동 계산) → fiscal_start. 결과: 적수·시가이자·수령이자·차액·익금산입액·부당행위 여부, 근거(법인세법 제52조, 시행령 제88조③·제89조③, 시행규칙 제43조).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
year_endYes사업연도 종료일(YYYY-MM-DD)
movementsYes가지급금 증감 목록 [{date:'YYYY-MM-DD', amount:원(대여 +, 회수 -)}]
market_rateNo시가 이자율(소수, 예: 0.046 = 4.6%). 가중평균차입이자율 원칙, 예외 시 당좌대출이자율 0.046
charged_rateNo실제 받은 이자율(소수, 예: 0.0 = 무수익)
fiscal_startNo사업연도 개시일(YYYY-MM-DD). 생략 시 year_end의 1년 전 다음 날
received_interestNo실제 받은 이자 금액(원, ge=0). 주면 charged_rate 계산 대신 이 금액을 수령이자로 사용

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / fiscal_start
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "사업연도 개시일(YYYY-MM-DD). 생략 시 year_end의 1년 전 다음 날",
+  "title": "Fiscal Start"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / received_interest
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "실제 받은 이자 금액(원, ge=0). 주면 charged_rate 계산 대신 이 금액을 수령이자로 사용",
+  "title": "Received Interest"
+}
  2. First observedv0.9.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the computational method, the composed output set (적수·시가이자·수령이자·차액·익금산입액·부당행위 여부), and the governing statute (법인세법 제52조, 시행령 제88조③·제89조③) — genuinely new context.

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?

Front-loaded and cleanly sectioned into 목적/언제/입력/결과, so an agent can scan it quickly. The 입력 paragraph is nonetheless redundant with a fully-documented schema, slightly diluting information density.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what it will receive. Inputs, trigger condition, and legal basis are all covered; only edge-case behavior (e.g. missing received_interest, empty movements) is left unstated.

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 six parameters including defaults and anyOf-null behavior. The '입력' block largely re-maps Korean labels to the same parameter names and repeats the schema text, adding little semantic meaning beyond it.

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?

States a specific computation with its formula ('적수 × 시가 이자율') plus the secondary judgment (부당행위계산 여부), which is far more than a restated name. However it never names or distinguishes the closely-related siblings (unfair_transaction, nonbusiness_interest_disallowance, thin_capitalization), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 '언제' block gives an explicit triggering condition: use when you need both the related-party 가지급금 interest and the 3억·5% unfair-transaction test together. That is clear context for selection, but no when-NOT-to-use or alternative tool is 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