Set or update sales tax rates for a specific tax jurisdiction using country code and jurisdiction ID, with optional shipping and handling tax inclusion.
Create or replace sales tax table for a jurisdiction
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| countryCode | Yes | Two-letter ISO 3166 country code | |
| salesTaxBase | Yes | Sales tax details | |
| jurisdictionId | Yes | Tax jurisdiction ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.1Input schema / properties / salesTaxBase / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +falsev1.8.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the upsert semantics 'create or replace', which clarifies that an existing jurisdiction table will be overwritten. It does not disclose additional side effects or prerequisites, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.
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, compact sentence with no filler. The verb phrase is front-loadedholistically and the scope is clear. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the length is appropriate for the tool's straightforward purpose.
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?
The description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly for a single jurisdiction, and the schema provides required parameters. However, it lacks mention of related sibling tools (e.g., bulk create/replace, delete, get), which would help an agent decide between alternatives. Given the schema and annotations, it is minimally complete but not rich in context.
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?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (countryCode, jurisdictionId, salesTaxBase) and nested salesTaxPercentage, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no new parameter-specific meaning; it only reuses the term 'jurisdiction' that is already in the schema.
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 and resource: 'Create or replace sales tax table' with a clear scope 'for a jurisdiction'. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ebay_bulk_create_or_replace_sales_tax, which creates or replaces sales tax across multiple jurisdictions.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the bulk sibling or related tax tools (ebay_get_sales_tax, ebay_delete_sales_tax). The agent must infer the intended use case from the name and schema, which leaves room for misselection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.