wave_get_sales_taxRetrieve a sales tax record and its full dated rate history by tax ID, optionally scoped to a business, to review historical applicable rates.
One sales tax with its full dated rate history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Sales tax ID | |
| businessId | No | Business ID; defaults to the one wave_get_context reports |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one contribution beyond that is disclosing the shape of the response ('full dated rate history'), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior for missing or archived tax IDs.
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?
It is a single short sentence fragment with zero filler, and the salient detail (rate history) is front-loaded. Economy is good, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers the essentials at a minimum-viable level. The lack of an output schema is partly offset by the mention of dated rate history, but nothing explains failure modes or how this differs operationally from listing taxes.
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%, and the schema already documents both the sales tax ID and the businessId default (falling back to the value from wave_get_context). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The phrase 'One sales tax with its full dated rate history' identifies the resource as a single sales tax record rather than a list, which implicitly separates it from wave_list_sales_taxes, and it adds that rate history is included. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the retrieval action is only inferable from the tool name and title rather than stated.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the wave_list_sales_taxes alternative for enumerating taxes, and no statement that an ID is required to fetch a single record. The agent must infer the lookup workflow entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.