Find the exact subdivision of a U.S. federal tax provision by providing its citation, enabling precise verification of quoted tax authorities against official government sources.
List a provision's subdivisions, so you can fetch the one you need.
Args: citation: The provision to open up, e.g. "§ 163".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citation | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists subdivisions, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or any limitations. The agent is left to infer that it's safe and non-destructive, but no explicit disclosure is given.
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 concise: two sentences plus an Args block. It front-loads the purpose and gives an example, with no wasted words. Well-structured for quick parsing.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings, but given the simplicity, it's adequate. The output schema likely handles return value details.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining the citation parameter with a concrete example ('§ 163'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's bare 'Citation' field, clarifying the expected format.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'a provision's subdivisions', which is specific and distinguishes it from fetching a full provision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_irc_provision, so it's clear but not maximally distinct.
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 phrase 'so you can fetch the one you need' implies the tool is a precursor to fetching a specific subdivision, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.