Retrieve state income tax rates, brackets, and key details for any US state by entering its two-letter code.
Get state income tax information — rates, brackets, and key details for any US state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stateCode | Yes | Two-letter state code (e.g., 'CA', 'TX', 'NY') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| isError | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Output 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"
+}v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds moderate context by listing rates, brackets, and key details, but it does not disclose edge cases such as whether territories are included or how federal versus state tax data is scoped.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds useful specifics. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple read-only lookup tool with one fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema available. The description covers the core scope and content well. It is not quite complete because it does not point to sibling tools for related use cases, but that is a secondary gap given the tool's low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for stateCode with type, length constraints, and an example. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the broad scope of 'any US state,' so the schema carries the weight and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('state income tax information'), and clarifies what is included: rates, brackets, and key details. It clearly identifies this as a state-level tax information tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related siblings like get_tax_brackets or estimate_state_tax.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as compare_state_taxes, estimate_state_tax, or get_tax_brackets. It only states that it covers state income tax information, leaving the agent to infer selection boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.