opentax

compare_filing_statuses

Compute the answer under every filing status for the same facts — e.g. to answer 'should we file jointly or separately?'. Statuses that need more facts report their error instead of guessing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`facts`	Yes	facts for the computation: either flat corpus fact ids (see list_input_facts) or the same group objects calculate_tax accepts (filing, income, retirement, …), plus optional target and asOf. Business/fiduciary/dependent facts are accepted flat. Unknown keys are rejected by name — nothing is ever silently dropped.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool computes for all statuses, returns errors for incomplete facts, and rejects unknown keys (from schema description). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the context implies no side effects. Overall, good disclosure for a compute tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies error handling. Front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. It covers purpose, error behavior, and parameter flexibility. Minor omission: no mention of the return format (e.g., a map of status to result/error), but overall complete for its complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a full description of the 'facts' parameter. The tool description adds extra context, noting that facts can be flat corpus IDs or group objects (like filing, income, retirement) accepted by calculate_tax, and that business/fiduciary/dependent facts are accepted flat. This enriches the schema description, earning a slightly higher score.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool computes answers under every filing status for the same facts, with an explicit example ('should we file jointly or separately?'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_tax, which likely process a single status.

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 a clear use case (comparing statuses) and explains that statuses with insufficient facts report errors rather than guessing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, which would further guide selection.

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

All opentax tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The compute tools are well-routed — calculate_tax explicitly directs business entities and fiduciaries to their own calculators — but verify_fact and verify_tax_claim are near-duplicates that differ only in whether the number being checked is a law parameter or a computed tax amount, and calculate_tax versus compute_return both accept the same individual-return input, distinguished only by output granularity. These two pairs create real misselection risk despite the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool uses a snake_case verb-first pattern: calculate_*, compute_*, compare_*, determine_*, explain_*, find_*, list_*, lookup_*, search_*, verify_*. The single outlier, is_tipped_occupation, still follows the verb-first snake_case convention, so there is no mixing of styles.

Tool Count5/5

Fifteen tools is at the top of the well-scoped band, but the domain is enormous — federal individual, business, and fiduciary computation, an 18-state return composer, and a citation-backed tax-law corpus with search, explanation, and verification utilities. Each tool has a distinct job, and the count feels lean rather than bloated for the stated scope.

Completeness4/5

The computational lifecycle is well covered: individual liability, the full 1040 line set, entity and fiduciary variants, state returns, filing-status comparison, dependent determination, and self-verification of any produced number. Minor gaps remain — only 18 of 50 states are modeled, and transfer taxes (Forms 706/709), payroll/FICA, and international forms are absent — but the tools refuse loudly on unmodeled territory rather than failing silently.

Resources

Need Help?