irs-taxpayer-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_tax_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a deterministic, privacy-first local tax plan for US individuals, delivering structured results, assumptions, source provenance, and calculation trace based on income, deductions, and filing status.

Instructions

Generate a deterministic, privacy-first local tax plan with structured results, assumptions, source provenance, calculation trace, and explicit unsupported boundaries.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`family`	No
`income`	Yes	Annual income facts. Qualified dividends are included in ordinary dividends.
`taxYear`	Yes	Tax year: 2024, 2025, or 2026
`business`	No
`payments`	No
`education`	No
`stateCode`	No
`deductions`	No
`filingStatus`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.1.0Sep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / stateCode / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[A-Za-z]{2}$"
```
addedOutput schema / properties / plan / properties / privacy / properties / modelInvoked
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / plan / properties / privacy / required

Previous value: -[
-  "execution",
-  "networkRequests",
-  "persisted",
-  "telemetry"
-]New value: +[
+  "execution",
+  "networkRequests",
+  "persisted",
+  "telemetry",
+  "modelInvoked"
+]

Addedv1.0.1Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: determinism, local/privacy-first processing, structured results, assumptions, source provenance, calculation trace, and explicit unsupported boundaries. It does not contradict annotations.

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 description is a single sentence and is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise, though it packs many abstract qualifiers without concrete details, which slightly reduces its clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, and rich sibling context, the description is too generic. It mentions output qualities like source provenance and calculation trace, but does not explain what inputs matter, what scenarios it covers, or how it differs from alternatives. The presence of an output schema helps but does not make the description complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 22%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters or input semantics. It offers no meaning beyond what the sparse schema descriptions already provide.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('tax plan'), and adds useful qualifiers (deterministic, privacy-first local). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like generate_full_tax_report or simulate_tax_scenario, so it falls 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many tax-planning siblings. It neither states typical use cases nor names alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server