Create or update a Swiss VAT tax code in one place, setting its code, kind, rate basis points, and form line for correct MWST reporting.
Add or edit a tax code at the single tax enumeration point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| rateBp | Yes | ||
| formLine | Yes | ||
| validFrom | No | ||
| workspaceId | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false; the description must therefore carry the behavioral load. It signals upsert semantics (create-or-overwrite), which is useful, but says nothing about what an edit overwrites, permission requirements, validation of rate/form line, or how validFrom affects historical postings. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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?
A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, so it is compact. However, the second half ('single tax enumeration point') is unexplained jargon that consumes space without adding actionable meaning.
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?
With 8 parameters, 5 required, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and only a single annotation, the definition leaves far too much for an agent to infer. It does not describe return values, error behavior, or the meaning of required fields.
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 description coverage is 0% with 8 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. Non-obvious fields like rateBp (basis points), formLine (tax return line), validFrom, and idempotencyKey are completely unexplained; only 'tax code' loosely maps to the code parameter.
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?
States a clear verb pair and resource: add or edit a tax (VAT) code. The trailing clause 'at the single tax enumeration point' is jargon that does not sharpen the definition, and no sibling (vat_codes, vat_code_deactivate, vat_configure) is named to differentiate scope, but the core operation is unambiguous.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus vat_configure, vat_seed_defaults, or vat_codes for reading. No prerequisites, no mention that deactivation is handled by vat_code_deactivate. 'Single tax enumeration point' hints at a canonical registry but never says so explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.