irs-taxpayer-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

standard_vs_itemized

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare standard and itemized deductions to determine which yields a lower tax liability for your filing status and income.

Instructions

Compare standard deduction vs itemized deductions to determine which is more beneficial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agi`	Yes	Adjusted Gross Income (needed for medical expense threshold)
`blind`	No
`taxYear`	Yes	Tax year (2024, 2025, or 2026)
`age65OrOlder`	No
`filingStatus`	Yes
`otherItemized`	No	Other itemized deductions
`medicalExpenses`	No	Unreimbursed medical expenses
`stateLocalTaxes`	No	State/local income + property taxes paid
`mortgageInterest`	No	Home mortgage interest paid
`charitableDonations`	No	Charitable contributions

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1Sep 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / taxYear / description

Previous value: -"Tax year (2024 or 2025)"New value: +"Tax year (2024, 2025, or 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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature of the tool, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds only that it determines 'which is more beneficial,' but it does not disclose how missing optional itemized inputs are handled or whether age/blind adjustments affect the standard deduction calculation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately clear about the tool's main purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of usage and behavioral detail covered by other dimensions.

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?

Given the 10-parameter schema, output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides minimally viable context but leaves gaps. Specifically, it does not mention that age65OrOlder and blind affect the standard deduction, nor how absent optional itemized categories are treated, which could matter for an accurate comparison.

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?

The description does not explain any of the 10 parameters, leaving the schema to carry most semantic weight; schema coverage is 70%. Missing descriptions for filingStatus, blind, and age65OrOlder are not compensated, though the parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory and the overall purpose clarifies that the monetary inputs are itemized deduction components.

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 action and resource combination: compare standard deduction vs itemized deductions and determine the more beneficial option. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_deductions (which lists deductions) and compare_filing_statuses (which compares filing statuses).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as list_deductions or calculate_obbb_deductions. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditional scenarios stated, so the agent must infer when this comparison is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server