Geo-Parity

Student visas matched to the funds a student can show

find_student_visas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Student-visa routes for the 41 spine countries — a hand-curated register of the funds a student must show (amount, currency, per month or year), the work hours allowed in term, the post-study stay in months, a path-to-residency flag, the official page it was read from and the check date; secondary-sourced entries are marked, and countries with no route are kind: "none". No tuition figures: no citable structured source exists. Give funds with optional currency and per (year default; month) for a match: routes the funds reach, near misses within 25%, 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. Funds are compared per year in USD at the site's FX snapshot; figures move each academic year. Published rules for information only — not immigration advice; every response says so first.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`per`	No		year
`funds`	No	Living funds the student can show, in `currency`, for `per`.
`country`	No	One ISO alpha-2 code.
`currency`	No		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
`unpublished`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "currency": "GBP",
+    "funds": 20000
+  }
+]

AddedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: near-miss tolerance (within 25%), how funds are normalized (per year in USD at the site's FX snapshot), that secondary-sourced entries are flagged, that missing routes surface as `kind: "none"`, and that every response leads with a not-immigration-advice disclaimer.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then usage modes, then caveats — a sensible order. It is dense, semicolon-heavy prose, and a few clauses (e.g., the tuition note, the FX-snapshot remark) could be trimmed, but nothing is redundant 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be specified, yet the description still enumerates the response categories (reached routes, near misses, no-published-figure routes, exclusions with reasons, no-route countries). Combined with the FX-normalization and disclaimer notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 60% (currency has no schema description, per only has an enum/default), and the description compensates: it fixes `per` semantics (year default, month), clarifies funds are in the given currency for that period, and defines `countries` as two-or-more ISO alpha-2 codes for side-by-side comparison. This adds meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 names a specific resource and scope ('student-visa routes for the 41 spine countries') and enumerates the fields carried per entry (funds amount/currency/period, work hours, post-study months, residency flag, source page, check date). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as find_nomad_visas, find_retirement_visas and find_founder_visas, which cover other visa classes.

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 gives explicit invocation modes: `funds` (+currency, +per) for matching, `country` for one entry, `countries` for a side-by-side, and states the default period. It does not explicitly route against the sibling visa tools, so an agent must infer the visa-class boundary from the name.

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?