Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
irs-taxpayer-mcp

irs-taxpayer-mcp

by dma9527
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

compare_state_taxes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare state income tax across 2–10 U.S. states for one tax year using each state's explicit calculation profile, filing status, and income before state deductions.

Instructions

Compare state income tax for one tax year only when every requested state has an explicit calculation profile.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statesYesArray of state codes to compare (e.g., ['CA', 'TX', 'WA', 'NY'])
taxYearYesTax year for all versioned state calculation profiles
filingStatusNoFiling status (default: single)
taxableIncomeNoDeprecated alias for incomeBeforeStateDeductions
incomeBeforeStateDeductionsNoAnnual income before modeled state deductions

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
errorNo
isErrorYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.4
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / taxYear / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / taxYear / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
  2. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / filingStatus
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filing status (default: single)",
+  "enum": [
+    "single",
+    "married"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / incomeBeforeStateDeductions
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Annual income before modeled state deductions",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / taxYear
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Tax year for all versioned state calculation profiles",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / taxableIncome / description
      Previous value: -"Annual taxable income"New value: +"Deprecated alias for incomeBeforeStateDeductions"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "states",
-  "taxableIncome"
-]New value: +[
+  "states",
+  "taxYear"
+]
    • 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"
+}
  3. First observedv0.5.3

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the important gating condition about calculation profiles, but it does not explain failure behavior when a profile is missing or how partial matches are handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense and efficient, though the compressed phrasing leaves some behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

Annotations cover safety and the output schema covers return structure, so the main description gap is usage guidance. The critical precondition is present, but the description does not explain fallback behavior or alternatives when not all requested states have profiles.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces the single-tax-year constraint and the requirement that requested states have profiles, but it adds no extra detail about defaults, the deprecated taxableIncome alias, or the 2-to-10 state limit.

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?

"Compare state income tax" gives a specific verb and resource, and "for one tax year only" narrows the scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as estimate_state_tax or compare_tax_years, but the purpose is still clear.

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 description gives a real precondition: use it only when every requested state has an explicit calculation profile. However, it does not say what to do when that condition fails or which alternative tool to use instead.

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