gst-india-mcp

Track GST returns (public)

track_gst_returns

Check GST return filing status and history for any GSTIN—GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and more—optionally filtered by financial year, without requiring a taxpayer session.

Instructions

Check the GST return filing status/history for a GSTIN (GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, etc.). Optionally filter by financial year (e.g. 2025-26). No taxpayer session required.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "gstin": "<gstin>"
    },
    "name": "track_gst_returns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gstin`	Yes	15-character GSTIN
`financial_year`	No	Financial year like 2025-26 (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the session-free/public nature and the fact that it returns filing status/history with optional financial-year filtering. It does not mention output shape, data freshness, or error behavior, but for a read-only tracking tool the key access constraint is stated.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the access constraint is stated succinctly in the second sentence.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter public lookup whose schema already covers the parameters. The main gap is not describing the returned status/history format or explicitly distinguishing this from track_returns_current, but the low complexity and clear scope make it mostly complete.

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 both parameters. The description repeats the optional financial-year filter and example format but adds no meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 ('check'), a specific resource ('GST return filing status/history for a GSTIN'), and the scope (GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, etc.). The 'public' title and 'No taxpayer session required' note help distinguish it from session-based taxpayer tools.

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?

Clearly indicates this is a public lookup that does not require a taxpayer session, which routes the agent away from OTP/session siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_gstr3b/get_gstr2b for detailed return data or track_returns_current, so exclusion guidance relies on inference.

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

Deploy Server