Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

tax_optimization

Read-only

Optimisation fiscale — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CFO). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Reference case: Pennylane — Fiscalité optimisée · CIR €1.2M · IP Box France 10% · Économie totale €2.4M/an. Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
companyYes
ipAssetsNo
activitiesYes
financialsYes
jurisdictionsYes
currentTaxOptimizationsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed17 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / activities / items
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 5,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / activities / maxItems
      Added value: +6
    • addedInput schema / properties / activities / minItems
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / company / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "legalForm": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "sector": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "stage": {
+    "enum": [
+      "pre-seed",
+      "seed",
+      "serie-a",
+      "serie-b",
+      "serie-c",
+      "serie-d-plus",
+      "profitable-sme",
+      "enterprise"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / company / required
      Added value: +[
+  "name",
+  "sector",
+  "stage"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / currentTaxOptimizations / items
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 2,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / currentTaxOptimizations / maxItems
      Added value: +5
    • addedInput schema / properties / currentTaxOptimizations / minItems
      Added value: +0
    • addedInput schema / properties / financials / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "annualRevenueEur": {
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "currentTaxRateEffectivePct": {
+    "maximum": 100,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "ebitdaEur": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "payrollEur": {
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "rdSpendEur": {
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / financials / required
      Added value: +[
+  "annualRevenueEur",
+  "ebitdaEur"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / ipAssets / items
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ipAssets / maxItems
      Added value: +5
    • addedInput schema / properties / ipAssets / minItems
      Added value: +0
    • addedInput schema / properties / jurisdictions / items
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 100,
+  "minLength": 2,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / jurisdictions / maxItems
      Added value: +5
    • addedInput schema / properties / jurisdictions / minItems
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "company",
+  "financials",
+  "jurisdictions",
+  "activities"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with external data access. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side and returns a structured deliverable. However, it does not disclose specifics like permission requirements, rate limits, or behavior on invalid inputs. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds marginal but acceptable behavioral context.

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 relatively short and front-loads the purpose and target audience. It includes a concrete reference case and mentions server-side validation. However, the phrase 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CFO)' is somewhat jargon-heavy but still concise. No wasted sentences, but could be slightly tighter.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the high complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output format ('structured, audited deliverable' is vague), nor does it explain the significance of the reference case or how the deliverable is structured. The agent lacks crucial context for effective use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 14%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond 'send the documented case fields.' Most properties in the input schema lack descriptions, and the tool description adds no further meaning. For a tool with 7 parameters including nested objects, this is insufficient for the agent to understand what data to provide.

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 indicates the tool performs tax optimization ('Optimisation fiscale') and returns a structured audited deliverable. It references a specific case (Pennylane) and targets C-suite expertise (CFO). While the verb is implied rather than explicit, it is clear that the tool analyzes and produces a tax optimization report. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tax_compliance_multi or ma_tax_efficiency_mapper, but the focus on CFO-level optimization is somewhat distinctive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description suggests usage for tax optimization by CFOs (C-suite expertise) but provides no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention conditions or contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose.

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

All mcp-knowledge toolsInspect
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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources