Skip to main content
Glama
dma9527

irs-taxpayer-mcp

by dma9527
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

compare_mfj_vs_mfs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare Married Filing Jointly vs Married Filing Separately for your income and dependents. See the tax difference and which MFS restrictions apply to your situation.

Instructions

Compare Married Filing Jointly (MFJ) vs Married Filing Separately (MFS). Shows tax difference and lists all MFS restrictions that may affect your situation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hasEITCNoEither spouse would qualify for EITC
taxYearYesTax year (2024, 2025, or 2026)
dependentsNoNumber of qualifying children (maximum 20)
spouse1IncomeYesSpouse 1 gross income
spouse2IncomeYesSpouse 2 gross income
itemizedDeductionsNoTotal itemized deductions (combined for MFJ, split for MFS)
hasEducationCreditsNoEither spouse claiming AOTC or LLC
hasIRAContributionsNoEither spouse contributing to IRA
studentLoanInterestNoEither spouse paying student loan interest

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
errorNo
isErrorYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / dependents / description
      Previous value: -"Number of qualifying children"New value: +"Number of qualifying children (maximum 20)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / dependents / maximum
      Added value: +20
    • changedInput schema / properties / taxYear / description
      Previous value: -"Tax year (2024 or 2025)"New value: +"Tax year (2024, 2025, or 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"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds useful output behavior (shows the tax difference, enumerates MFS restrictions), which goes beyond the schema. It does not, however, disclose caveats such as whether it returns a recommendation or how it treats edge cases like hasEITC under MFS.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Compare Married Filing Jointly vs Married Filing Separately'), and the second sentence specifies the outputs. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile, so the description is only responsible for purpose and routing. It handles purpose and output behavior well, but it lacks any differentiation from or guidance around the closely related sibling compare_filing_statuses, which is a real completeness gap for a 9-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — all 9 parameters carry type, constraints, and explanatory text (e.g., 'combined for MFJ, split for MFS'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so it sits at the baseline 3; it neither enriches nor undermines the schema's documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') with an exact resource (MFJ vs MFS) and states what the tool produces: a tax difference and a list of MFS restrictions. The scope is unambiguous and the name reinforces it. However, it never explicitly names or differentiates from the overlapping sibling compare_filing_statuses, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

When to use this tool is implied by its name and content — an agent comparing MFJ vs MFS would naturally select it. But there is no explicit when/when-not language, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to the broader compare_filing_statuses sibling for cases involving other filing statuses. The guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools