Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@calcuris-mcp calculate US federal tax for $95k single in CA"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that exposes the tax engines behind Calcuris — real 2026 US income tax & paycheck math, US state property tax, Canadian federal + provincial income tax, Australian income tax & stamp duty, and UK dividend tax. No API key, no network calls: every number is computed locally from data sourced from the IRS, Tax Foundation, CRA/Revenu Québec, the ATO and state revenue offices, and HMRC.
Run directly with npx — no install required.
Add to your MCP config (claude_desktop_config.json or .mcp.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"calcuris": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "calcuris-mcp"]
}
}
}Add to .cursor/mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"calcuris": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "calcuris-mcp"]
}
}
}Related MCP server: calcnook
Every response includes a source note and a reference_url pointing to the
live calculator on calcuris.com that uses the same
engine.
Tool | Description | Example call | Example response (excerpt) |
| US federal (2026 IRS brackets, post-OBBBA) + estimated state income tax, with a full progressive bracket breakdown. |
|
|
| US take-home pay per pay period: federal withholding, Social Security, Medicare (+ Additional Medicare), state tax, net pay. |
|
|
| Annual/monthly property tax from a home value and either a custom rate or a state's real 2026 effective rate. |
|
|
| Canadian federal + provincial/territorial income tax, CPP/QPP (+ CPP2/QPP2), EI/QPIP, and net take-home pay. Optional |
|
|
| Australian resident income tax (2025-26 ATO brackets) + Medicare levy, Medicare Levy Surcharge, LITO offset, HELP/HECS repayment. |
|
|
| Australian state/territory stamp duty, including first-home-buyer concessions and the foreign purchaser surcharge. Optional |
|
|
| UK dividend tax with HMRC's stacking method (dividends sit on top of other income), tapered Personal Allowance, £500 dividend allowance, year-over-year comparison. |
|
|
Each tool's inputSchema documents every field (types, enums, defaults) and
is discoverable via tools/list — see the source in
src/index.ts for the full parameter set.
All engines target tax year 2026 (UK: 2026/27, with 2025/26 comparison built in). Rates and brackets are sourced from:
US — IRS Rev. Proc. 2025-32 (federal brackets, standard deduction, Child Tax Credit), SSA/IRS FICA wage base and rates, Tax Foundation (state income tax brackets and property tax effective rates), state revenue offices.
Canada — CRA (federal brackets, BPA, CPP/CPP2), Revenu Québec (QPP, QPIP, Quebec abatement), provincial finance ministries.
Australia — ATO (2025-26 individual tax rates, Medicare levy, LITO, HELP/HECS repayment thresholds), state and territory revenue offices (stamp duty schedules and first-home-buyer concessions).
UK — HMRC (Personal Allowance, dividend allowance, Income Tax bands and dividend rates for 2025/26 and 2026/27).
These are the same datasets that power the live calculators:
Results are estimates for guidance only and do not constitute tax, legal, or financial advice. Tax situations vary by individual (local taxes, deductions, credits, and edge cases are not exhaustively modeled). Always confirm figures with a qualified tax professional or the relevant government authority before making financial decisions.
npm install
npm run build # compiles src/ → dist/ with tsc
npm test # spawns the built server and runs the smoke testMIT © 2026 tresor4k
Computes Australian resident income tax (2025-26 ATO brackets) plus Medicare levy, Medicare levy surcharge, LITO offset, and HELP/HECS repayment. Example: { taxableIncome: 95000, privateHospitalCover: true, hasHelpDebt: false }. Estimate for guidance — 2026 rates from official sources (IRS/Tax Foundation/CRA/ATO/state revenue offices/HMRC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hasHelpDebt | No | True if the taxpayer has an outstanding HELP/HECS debt (triggers compulsory repayment). | |
| taxableIncome | Yes | Annual taxable income in AUD. | |
| privateHospitalCover | No | True if covered by private hospital insurance (avoids the Medicare Levy Surcharge). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'estimate for guidance' and cites official sources, hinting at non-binding output. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or what its limitations are (e.g., only 2025-26 rates, not all deductions).
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 two sentences: the first lists functionality and gives an example, the second adds source and disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no fluff.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description fails to describe the return format or contents. It says 'computes' these components but does not specify whether the output is a single number, a breakdown, or an object. This is a significant gap for a calculation tool.
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 100% with descriptions, but the tool description adds value by explaining how parameters affect the calculation (e.g., privateHospitalCover avoids MLS, hasHelpDebt triggers repayment) and listing the components. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter definitions.
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 tool computes Australian resident income tax with specific components (Medicare levy, surcharge, LITO, HELP/HECS) and provides a concrete example. It distinguishes from sibling tools like us_income_tax and ca_income_tax by specifying the tax jurisdiction and year.
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 description implies usage for Australian residents and provides an example, but does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for non-residents or other tax calculations). Sibling tools are different countries, so context is clear but exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Computes Australian state/territory stamp duty on a property purchase, including first-home-buyer concessions and the foreign purchaser surcharge where applicable. Example: { propertyValue: 750000, stateCode: "NSW", firstHomeBuyer: false, foreignResident: false, principalResidence: true }. Set compareAllStates: true to compare every state/territory for the same property value. Estimate for guidance — 2026 rates from official sources (IRS/Tax Foundation/CRA/ATO/state revenue offices/HMRC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stateCode | Yes | State/territory code. Valid codes: NSW, VIC, QLD, WA, SA, TAS, ACT, NT. | |
| propertyValue | Yes | Purchase price / property value in AUD. | |
| firstHomeBuyer | No | True if the buyer qualifies as a first home buyer (applies concession where available). | |
| foreignResident | No | True if the buyer is a foreign person (applies the foreign purchaser surcharge). | |
| compareAllStates | No | If true, also return the same calculation for every state/territory. | |
| principalResidence | No | True if this will be the buyer's principal place of residence (owner-occupier); false for an investment purchase. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Discloses use of 2026 rates from official sources, estimates nature, and coverage of concessions. Lacks details on rate limits or error handling.
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?
Two sentences plus an example; front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words.
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?
Covers all parameters and gives usage context. However, missing return value details and error cases; no output schema to compensate.
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 100%, but description adds value with an example, explanation of 'compareAllStates', and clarification on boolean parameters. Provides context beyond schema.
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?
Clear verb 'Computes' with specific resource 'Australian state/territory stamp duty' and details on concessions and surcharges. Distinct from sibling tools which handle other tax types.
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?
Provides an example and explains the 'compareAllStates' option. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though sibling context implies differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Computes Canadian federal + provincial/territorial income tax, CPP/QPP (+ CPP2/QPP2), EI/QPIP, and net take-home pay for a given province, 2026 rates. Example: { grossIncome: 75000, provinceCode: "ON" }. Set compareAllProvinces: true to get every province/territory side by side. Estimate for guidance — 2026 rates from official sources (IRS/Tax Foundation/CRA/ATO/state revenue offices/HMRC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grossIncome | Yes | Annual employment income in CAD. | |
| provinceCode | Yes | Two-letter province/territory code. Valid codes: AB, BC, MB, NB, NL, NS, NT, NU, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT. | |
| rrspContribution | No | Annual RRSP contribution in CAD (deducted from taxable income). | |
| compareAllProvinces | No | If true, also return the same calculation for every province/territory (ignores provinceCode for the comparison table, but a single result for provinceCode is still returned as "result"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the calculation is an 'estimate for guidance' using '2026 rates from official sources', which adds some transparency. However, it does not explain limitations, accuracy bounds, or how partial tax credits (e.g., for deductions) are handled.
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 two sentences long with a code example, making it efficient. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a typical usage example, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters).
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and a complex calculation involving multiple jurisdictions, the description gives a high-level overview but lacks details on the output structure (e.g., breakdown of tax, CPP, EI) and edge cases (e.g., zero income). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining grossIncome as 'annual employment income in CAD', provinceCode as a two-letter code with valid codes listed, rrspContribution as deducted from taxable income, and compareAllProvinces behavior. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.
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 tool name, title, and description clearly indicate it computes Canadian federal and provincial income tax for 2026, including CPP/EI and take-home pay. The example and sibling tools (e.g., us_income_tax) confirm its geographic specificity, making purpose unmistakable.
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 description provides an example and mentions the compareAllProvinces option, giving usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (though sibling tools are country-specific) or mention prerequisites like 'grossIncome' must be in CAD.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Computes UK dividend tax using HMRC's stacking method (dividends sit on top of other income), including the tapered Personal Allowance and the £500 dividend allowance, with a year-over-year comparison. Example: { otherIncome: 40000, dividends: 15000, year: "2026/27" }. Estimate for guidance — 2026 rates from official sources (IRS/Tax Foundation/CRA/ATO/state revenue offices/HMRC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | UK tax year. | |
| dividends | Yes | Gross dividends received in GBP. | |
| otherIncome | Yes | Salary / other taxable income in GBP, excluding dividends. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the calculation method, allowances, and estimation nature. Does not mention any destructive behavior or permission needs, but the tool appears read-only and safe.
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?
Two concise sentences plus an example that effectively demonstrate usage. No redundant or unnecessary information.
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?
Covers the method, allowances, and example. Lacks explicit description of the output format (e.g., breakdown of tax components) but mentions 'year-over-year comparison', implying the result structure. Adequate for a complex tax calculator.
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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds an example and reinforces the meaning of parameters (e.g., otherIncome excludes dividends), but does not significantly extend beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states the tool computes UK dividend tax using HMRC's stacking method, with specific details about allowances and year comparison. Distinguishes from sibling tools focused on other countries or tax types.
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?
Provides a clear example and context for using the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, sibling tools cover different jurisdictions and tax types, making the intended usage fairly obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Computes US federal income tax (2026 IRS brackets, post-OBBBA) plus an estimated state income tax, with a full progressive bracket breakdown. Example: { grossIncome: 95000, filingStatus: "single", stateCode: "CA" }. Estimate for guidance — 2026 rates from official sources (IRS/Tax Foundation/CRA/ATO/state revenue offices/HMRC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stateCode | No | Optional two-letter state code to also estimate state income tax. Omit to skip state estimation. | |
| dependents | No | Number of qualifying children for the Child Tax Credit. | |
| grossIncome | Yes | Gross annual income in USD. | |
| useItemized | No | Use itemized deductions instead of the standard deduction. | |
| filingStatus | Yes | IRS filing status: single, mfj (married filing jointly), hoh (head of household), mfs (married filing separately). | |
| itemizedAmount | No | Total itemized deductions in USD (only used if useItemized is true and it exceeds the standard deduction). | |
| preTaxContributions | No | Annual pre-tax 401(k)/traditional IRA contributions, reduces taxable income. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes it is an estimate for guidance based on 2026 rates, but does not disclose limitations such as what is not included (e.g., AMT, investment income) beyond the Child Tax Credit. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and more detail on behavioral constraints would improve transparency.
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 two sentences plus an example, front-loading the main function. However, the parenthetical list of sources ('IRS/Tax Foundation/...') is verbose and could be shortened or moved to a note, slightly reducing conciseness.
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?
The description does not specify the return value structure (e.g., whether it returns federal tax, state tax, effective rate). With no output schema, more detail on the output would improve completeness. The given description is adequate but leaves gaps for a 7-parameter tool.
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 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by including an example and clarifying that stateCode is optional, and by noting the tax year (2026, post-OBBBA) which adds context beyond the schema.
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 tool computes US federal income tax plus estimated state income tax with a progressive bracket breakdown, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ca_income_tax' and 'us_paycheck' by specifying federal and multi-state scope.
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 description includes an example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ca_income_tax' or 'us_paycheck'. Usage context is implied through the example but lacks clear when-not-to-use guidance or differentiation from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Computes US take-home pay per pay period: federal withholding, Social Security, Medicare (+ Additional Medicare), state tax, and net pay, for salaried or hourly workers. Example: { payType: "salary", annualSalary: 80000, payFrequency: "biweekly", filingStatus: "single", stateCode: "TX" }. Estimate for guidance — 2026 rates from official sources (IRS/Tax Foundation/CRA/ATO/state revenue offices/HMRC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payType | Yes | Whether pay is a fixed annual salary or an hourly rate. | |
| stateCode | No | Optional two-letter state code to also withhold state tax. Omit to skip. | |
| dependents | No | Number of dependents (informational, not withheld via CTC in this engine). | |
| hourlyRate | No | Hourly rate in USD (used when payType is "hourly"). | |
| annualSalary | No | Annual salary in USD (used when payType is "salary"). | |
| filingStatus | Yes | IRS filing status used for federal withholding. | |
| hoursPerWeek | No | Hours worked per week (used when payType is "hourly", or to derive an hourly-equivalent when salaried). | |
| payFrequency | Yes | Pay period frequency. | |
| preTaxHealth | No | Pre-tax health/HSA (section 125) contribution PER PAY PERIOD (reduces federal/state AND FICA taxable income). | |
| extraWithholding | No | Additional federal withholding requested PER PAY PERIOD (W-4 line 4c). | |
| preTaxRetirement | No | Pre-tax 401(k) contribution PER PAY PERIOD (reduces federal/state taxable income, not FICA). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses the estimate nature and source of rates, but lacks details on limitations (e.g., dependents are informational) and output behavior.
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 relatively concise with an example, but includes irrelevant source references (e.g., HMRC) that detract from focus. It could be more streamlined.
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?
No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return values. It mentions what the tool computes but not the structure or format of the output, leaving the agent uncertain about the response.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, only including an example and noting stateCode is optional.
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?
Description clearly states it computes US take-home pay per pay period, listing specific components (federal withholding, Social Security, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like us_income_tax and us_property_tax.
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 description provides an example and mentions it is an estimate for guidance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Estimates annual/monthly US property tax from a home value and either a custom rate or a state's real 2026 effective property tax rate. Example: { homeValue: 350000, stateCode: "NJ" }. Estimate for guidance — 2026 rates from official sources (IRS/Tax Foundation/CRA/ATO/state revenue offices/HMRC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ratePct | No | Optional custom effective property tax rate (%). Overrides the state's rate if both are given. | |
| exemption | No | Homestead exemption amount in USD, subtracted from the assessed value. | |
| homeValue | Yes | Market value of the home in USD. | |
| stateCode | No | Optional two-letter state code. When provided (and ratePct is not), the state's real 2026 effective property tax rate is used automatically. | |
| assessmentRatioPct | No | Percent of market value actually assessed (default 100; some states assess less than market value). |
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 notes the estimate is for guidance and cites official sources, but doesn't disclose limitations like local variations or updates.
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 with two sentences and an example, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides an example and source note, but could mention return format (annual/monthly) and what values are estimated.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description includes an example but adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema descriptions.
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 specifies the tool estimates US property tax based on home value and either a custom rate or a state's effective rate. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like us_income_tax by focusing on property tax.
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 description implies when to use (property tax estimation) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. However, siblings cover different tax types, making the context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.1au_income_taxau_stamp_dutyca_income_taxuk_dividend_taxus_income_taxus_paycheckus_property_taxEach tool targets a distinct combination of country and tax type (e.g., us_income_tax vs au_stamp_duty), with no overlap in functionality. Descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent pattern: two-letter country code (lowercase) followed by underscore and the specific tax type (e.g., us_income_tax, au_stamp_duty). This makes it easy to predict tool names.
With 7 tools covering major tax calculations for multiple countries, the count feels well-scoped and manageable. Each tool serves a clear purpose without bloat.
The set covers several tax types but has notable gaps: missing UK income tax, Canadian property tax, and Australian property tax (only stamp duty is present). Agents may need additional tools for complete tax workflows.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
US mortgage calculator and amortization API with 50-state property tax, PMI, and affordability data.
90+ pure finance calculators: loans, investing, bonds, options, tax. Stateless, stores nothing.
Real Australian lender serviceability, plus repayments, borrowing power and stamp duty.
Search and run New Zealand tax, KiwiSaver, mortgage and property calculators
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tresor4k/calcuris-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
