Geo-Parity

Founder, start-up and investor visas, matched to available funds

find_founder_visas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Which of the 41 spine countries would let a founder in, and on what terms — a hand-curated register of founder/start-up routes, investor routes and kind: "none" entries, each with its one published money figure and what it is for (minFunds.basis: an investment to make, subsistence funds to hold, or funding raised from investors), whether an endorsing body must approve the project, duration, renewability, a path-to-residency flag, the official page it was read from and the check date; an entry read from secondary reporting because the official site could not be fetched is marked confidence: "secondary". Give funds with optional currency for a match: routes the funds reach, near misses within 25%, routes needing money raised from investors rather than held, routes with no published figure, exclusions with the reason, and the countries with no route. Or country for one entry, countries for a side-by-side. Thresholds are compared in USD at the site's FX snapshot; endorsement and business-plan tests are not modelled, and programmes pause and reprice. Published rates and facts on the dates shown, for information only — not tax, legal or immigration advice; every response says so first.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`funds`	No	Funds available to commit, in `currency`.
`country`	No	One ISO alpha-2 code for a single entry.
`currency`	No	ISO 4217 code of `funds` (e.g. "GBP").	USD
`countries`	No	Comma-separated ISO alpha-2 codes, two or more, for a side-by-side.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`kind`	No
`none`	No
`rows`	No
`caveats`	No
`qualify`	No
`nearMiss`	No
`attribution`	No
`fundingRaised`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "currency": "GBP",
+    "funds": 50000
+  }
+]

AddedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already covering the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds substantial context: USD-normalized FX snapshot comparisons, a 25% near-miss band, exclusions-with-reasons, `confidence: "secondary"` provenance marking, an unmodeled endorsement/business-plan caveat, reprice/pause volatility, and a mandatory disclaimer prefix in every response. This is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 purpose and the query modes are front-loaded ahead of the data-model detail, and the closing disclaimer is appropriately last. The prose is extremely dense — a long colon-and-semicolon chain — but nearly every clause carries actionable matching or provenance information rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only, openWorld=false lookup with an output schema present, the description still explains the returned match categories, provenance flags and the legal-advice disclaimer, so an agent can both call it and interpret it correctly. Nothing material is left unspecified.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches the parameters: it explains what a `funds` match returns (in-reach routes, near misses, no-figure routes, investor-raised vs held money, exclusions), what `country` and `countries` each do, and that `currency` is ISO 4217 relative to `funds`. It adds matching semantics the schema cannot express.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: matching founders/investors to the 41 spine countries' visa routes. It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling visa tools (find_nomad_visas, find_retirement_visas, find_student_visas) by naming founder/start-up and investor routes explicitly.

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?

It lays out the three invocation modes clearly — `funds` (plus optional `currency`) for a budget match, `country` for a single entry, `countries` for a side-by-side — so an agent knows which parameter drives which behavior. It never states when not to use it or points to a sibling alternative, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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

All Geo-Parity tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?