Geo-Parity

Retirement and passive-income visas, matched to a monthly income

find_retirement_visas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Which of the 41 spine countries would let a retiree in, and on what terms — a hand-curated register of retiree, passive-income and deposit routes (kind), each with minimum age, monthly income or deposit threshold in its own currency, 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", and countries with no route are kind: "none" with a line saying why. Give income (monthly) with optional currency, age and savings for a match: routes the income reaches, near misses within 25%, deposit routes (judged only when savings is given — a pension says nothing about a fixed deposit), 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; dependants raise them. Published rules and modelled figures on the dates shown, for information only — entitlements depend on a person's record and consulates decide; every response says so first.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`age`	No	Applicant age; routes with a higher minimum are excluded.
`income`	No	Monthly income to match, in `currency`.
`country`	No	One ISO alpha-2 code for a single entry.
`savings`	No	Lump sum available, in `currency`; unlocks deposit routes.
`currency`	No	ISO 4217 code of `income` and `savings` (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
`depositRoutes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "age": 62,
+    "currency": "GBP",
+    "income": 1500
+  }
+]

AddedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world); the description adds rich, non-obvious behavior: provenance with check dates, a `confidence: "secondary"` flag for sources read from secondary reporting, `kind: "none"` for countries with no route, USD-at-FX-snapshot comparison, dependants raising thresholds, and a standing disclaimer. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is front-loaded and essentially every clause carries information, but it is delivered as one enormous semicolon-chained sentence that is hard to parse for an agent or human. It would scan far better broken into 3-4 sentences separating data model, matching modes, and caveats.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still enumerates the response categories (matches, near misses within 25%, deposit routes, no-figure routes, exclusions with reason, no-route countries), which is more than enough for a 6-param, zero-required read tool.

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 adds genuine semantics: income is judged against deposit routes only when savings is supplied ('a pension says nothing about a fixed deposit'), currency is compared in USD at the site's FX snapshot, and age excludes routes with higher minimums. It does not document the upper age bound or country vs countries precedence beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Which of the 41 spine countries would let a retiree in, and on what terms') plus the exact scope (retiree, passive-income and deposit routes) and the fields each entry carries. It is clearly separable from siblings like find_nomad_visas, find_student_visas and find_founder_visas.

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?

Gives explicit invocation modes: pass income (+currency/age/savings) for a match, country for one entry, countries for a side-by-side. It also scopes which routes are judged under which inputs ('deposit routes judged only when savings is given'). It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools for adjacent needs (e.g. nomad vs retirement routes), so not a 5.

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?