irs-taxpayer-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

simulate_tax_scenario

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare your current tax situation against hypothetical changes—income, relocation, Roth conversion, or filing status—to see the exact impact on your taxes.

Instructions

What-if tax scenario simulator. Compare your current situation against a hypothetical change: income change, relocation, Roth conversion, filing status change, etc. Shows the exact tax impact of the change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`taxYear`	Yes	Tax year
`currentState`	No	Current state code
`filingStatus`	Yes
`currentIncome`	Yes	Current gross income
`whatIfNewState`	No	New state if relocating
`currentDependents`	No
`whatIfFilingStatus`	No	New filing status
`whatIfIncomeChange`	No	Income change amount (positive = more income, negative = less)
`currentCapitalGains`	No
`whatIfNewDependents`	No	New number of dependents
`whatIfAdditional401k`	No	Additional 401k contribution
`whatIfItemizedChange`	No	Change in itemized deductions
`whatIfRothConversion`	No	Amount to convert from Traditional to Roth IRA
`currentSelfEmployment`	No
`currentItemizedDeductions`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1Sep 7, 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"
+}

First observedv0.5.3Feb 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool 'Shows the exact tax impact,' which gives some behavioral context about the output, but does not clarify behavior when only current parameters are supplied (e.g., whether a comparison is still returned) or any other operational caveats.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The opening phrase 'What-if tax scenario simulator' immediately conveys the core function, and the rest adds example scenarios and the expected outcome efficiently.

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?

For a tool with 15 parameters, the description provides a useful conceptual model but omits guidance on how to structure a scenario (e.g., which combinations of current and what-if fields are meaningful) and what exactly 'exact tax impact' includes. The output schema exists, so return-value details are covered, but the operational semantics are still somewhat underspecified.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds conceptual grouping by contrasting 'current' vs 'what-if' and names specific hypothetical changes that map to parameters, but it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters or clarify the required relationship between current and what-if inputs.

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') and resource ('tax scenario'), and explains the what-if nature with concrete examples (income change, relocation, Roth conversion, filing status change). It clearly describes what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like compare_filing_statuses or analyze_relocation_taxes.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use it: when you want to compare a current situation against a hypothetical change. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'What-if tax scenario simulator' framing makes the intended use case distinct enough.

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

Deploy Server