irs-taxpayer-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

assess_audit_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate your IRS audit risk from your tax return profile: identify red flags, get a risk score, and receive actionable 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

TableJSON 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

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it analyzes the tax return profile and produces risk indicators and advice, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as methodology, scoring scale, or data handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, output, and actionable benefit.

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 read-only analysis tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, this description gives an agent enough to decide when to call it and what to expect. Minor gaps remain around optional-field usage and clarifying that the risk score is an estimate, but these do not undermine effective invocation.

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 the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description adds only the high-level framing that the inputs form a 'tax return profile' used for risk assessment, without providing detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific action ('Evaluate') on a specific resource ('IRS audit risk') and clearly states what the tool produces: red flags, a risk score, and reduction tips. This audit-risk focus distinguishes it from sibling tax calculation, deadline, and deduction tools.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this tool when a user wants to assess IRS audit exposure based on their tax profile. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how to choose it over potentially overlapping tools like run_tax_health_check.

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

Deploy Server