irs-taxpayer-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

assess_audit_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate IRS audit risk from your tax return profile, identify red flags, score your risk level, and get tips to reduce audit exposure.

Instructions

Evaluate your IRS audit risk based on your tax return profile. Identifies red flags, scores your risk level, and provides tips to reduce audit exposure.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`eitcClaimed`	No	Claiming EITC?
`grossIncome`	Yes	Total gross income
`largeRefund`	No	Expecting a very large refund?
`cashBusiness`	No	Is your business cash-intensive (restaurant, salon, etc.)?
`filingStatus`	Yes
`rentalLosses`	No	Rental property losses claimed
`roundNumbers`	No	Are most deductions round numbers ($5,000, $10,000)?
`businessMeals`	No	Business meal deductions
`foreignAccounts`	No	Have foreign bank accounts or assets?
`vehicleDeduction`	No	Vehicle/mileage deduction
`charitableNonCash`	No	Non-cash charitable donations (clothing, property)
`cryptoTransactions`	No	Had cryptocurrency transactions?
`charitableDonations`	No	Total charitable donations
`homeOfficeDeduction`	No	Claiming home office deduction?
`selfEmploymentIncome`	No	Self-employment income

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.4Nov 4, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that the tool performs heuristic red-flag detection and scoring, but omits anything an agent would want beyond that: whether a score is deterministic given the same inputs, whether it is advisory rather than authoritative, and whether partial profiles degrade accuracy.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the output summary. Nothing repeats the tool name or the annotations.

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?

With 15 parameters, an output schema, and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential 'what' and 'what you get back' without needing to restate field semantics. The remaining gap is guidance on how much profile data is sufficient, since only 2 of 15 parameters are required and the description never says optional inputs can be omitted.

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 93%, so nearly every one of the 15 parameters is already documented in structured data, and an output schema exists for results. The description adds no field-level meaning, thresholds, or units beyond implying that the inputs describe a 'tax return profile'; the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Evaluate your IRS audit risk') and enumerates the three outputs: red-flag identification, risk scoring, and reduction tips. It is clearly distinguishable from tax-calculation siblings, though it never explicitly positions itself against adjacent advisory tools like run_tax_health_check or get_tax_planning_tips.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Based on your tax return profile' implies the agent should supply return details, and the 13 optional fields hint at a progressive-disclosure usage pattern, but the description never states this. There is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no named alternative for related questions.

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

Deploy Server