irs-taxpayer-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

analyze_paycheck

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check your pay stub to verify federal and state tax withholding accuracy, ensuring your employer withholds the correct amount for your tax situation.

Instructions

Analyze a paycheck to verify withholding accuracy. Input your pay stub numbers and see if your employer is withholding the right amount.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`taxYear`	Yes	Tax year
`grossPay`	Yes	Gross pay this period
`stateCode`	No
`filingStatus`	Yes
`payFrequency`	Yes
`stateWithheld`	No	State tax withheld this period
`retirement401k`	No	401k/403b pre-tax contribution this period
`federalWithheld`	Yes	Federal tax withheld this period
`hsaContribution`	No	HSA contribution this period
`medicareWithheld`	No	Medicare withheld
`socialSecurityWithheld`	No	Social Security withheld

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`error`	No
`isError`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1Sep 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "suggestion": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "message",
+        "suggestion"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "isError": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "text": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "text",
+    "isError"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.5.3Feb 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description correctly avoids repeating those. It adds a behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the tool performs a comparison/evaluation against expected withholding, producing a correctness assessment rather than just returning configuration data or raw tax figures. This meaningfully enriches the agent's understanding.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded ('Analyze a paycheck to verify withholding accuracy'), followed by a direct instruction on usage and expected outcome. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, required fields, and an output schema, the description gives enough context for correct selection and basic invocation: it tells the user to provide pay stub numbers and describes the verification outcome. It does not explicitly state that stateCode is needed for state withholding analysis or that optional inputs control analysis scope, but the input schema and output schema cover those details. Complete enough for a moderately complex tool.

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?

The description only says 'Input your pay stub numbers' — a general instruction that maps to all parameters but adds little specific meaning. Schema descriptions already cover most fields (73% coverage) with clear text like 'Gross pay this period' and 'Federal tax withheld this period', though stateCode lacks a description. The tool description does not compensate for that gap, leaving parameter semantics at the baseline.

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?

The description states a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Analyze a paycheck to verify withholding accuracy.' It further specifies the input ('your pay stub numbers') and the outcome ('see if your employer is withholding the right amount'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_federal_tax or estimate_state_tax by focusing on verification of actual withholding rather than tax liability calculation.

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 description provides clear usage context: it is used when you have a pay stub and want to check whether withholding is correct. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, such as using calculate_w4_withholding for planning future withholding instead of verifying current paycheck numbers. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server