Skip to main content
Glama
dma9527

irs-taxpayer-mcp

by dma9527
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

compare_state_taxes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare state income taxes across multiple states for one tax year to identify lower tax liability. Requires explicit calculation profiles for all chosen states.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
errorNo
isErrorYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.3

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the single-year restriction and the state-profile precondition, but leaves open what happens if a state lacks a profile and gives no hint about error behavior or output shape beyond the output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and then the two narrow constraints. No wasted words; every phrase 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?

Annotations and output schema carry much of the burden, but the key precondition 'explicit calculation profile' is not operationalized: an agent has no guidance on how to determine whether a state has one or which sibling to consult beforehand. For a tool with five parameters and a conditional availability constraint, this is a meaningful gap.

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, including the deprecated taxableIncome alias and filingStatus default. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail and therefore sits at the baseline 3 for this dimension.

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?

States a specific verb ('compare') with a clear resource ('state income tax') and two scoping constraints: one tax year only, and the requirement that every requested state has an explicit calculation profile. This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_tax_years and estimate_state_tax without needing to open the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the condition under which the tool should be used ('only when every requested state has an explicit calculation profile') and constrains it to a single tax year. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to look elsewhere.

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