Read a tax field from Canadian professional tax software using a vendor-neutral concept, enabling AI agents to access return data across Taxprep and DT Max without vendor-specific logic.
Read a tax field using a vendor-neutral concept
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| concept | Yes | ||
| tax_year | Yes | ||
| return_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read, which is useful, but it does not describe return format, error conditions, pagination, access requirements, or behavior when the requested concept is unsupported.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately compact, though the phrase 'vendor-neutral concept' is somewhat vague and could be clearer without adding length.
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 read operation with no output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented required parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a 'concept' is, how to discover valid concepts, or how the return value is shaped. Sibling list_concepts could have been referenced but is not.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Vendor-neutral concept' adds some meaning for the concept parameter, but return_id and tax_year are left entirely to their self-evident names. No parameter-level detail is provided.
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?
Description states a specific action ('Read a tax field') and resource ('tax field'), with the additional qualifier 'vendor-neutral concept' to indicate the lookup mechanism. It is distinguishable from sibling set_field (write operation) and list_concepts (listing concepts), though it does not explicitly name or contrast with them.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'Read' implies a read operation, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of suitable alternatives such as set_field for writing or list_concepts for discovering available concepts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.