Spain Legal by Legal Fournier

Compare Tax Regimes

compare_tax_regimes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare Beckham versus standard Spanish resident taxation conceptually, returning reasoning, review level, and canonical MCP resources instead of rate tables.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`employment_type`	No	Employment structure to test against the conceptual tax comparison.
`has_foreign_income`	No	Whether foreign-source income is material to the profile.
`prefers_predictability`	No	Whether the applicant values a simpler, more predictable regime structure.
`has_significant_foreign_assets`	No	Whether foreign assets are materially relevant to planning.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`caveats`	Yes	Caveats that limit the comparison.
`summary`	Yes	Short explanation of the recommendation.
`comparison`	Yes	Topic-by-topic conceptual comparison.
`references`	Yes	Secondary Legal Fournier references.
`next_actions`	Yes	Next actions that sharpen the tax answer.
`review_level`	Yes	How much human review is still advisable before treating the result as filing-ready.
`decision_trace`	Yes	Structured trace of the main tax-comparison factors.
`recommendation`	Yes	Conceptual starting recommendation.
`likely_fit_notes`	Yes	Why the profile leans toward a given regime.
`key_rules_applied`	Yes	Stable rules applied by the tool.
`related_resource_uris`	Yes	Canonical MCP resources an agent can read next without leaving the server.
`official_legal_sources`	Yes	Official tax and mobility sources anchoring the comparison.
`suggested_follow_up_tools`	Yes	Tool calls that are likely to advance the analysis.
`current_verification_flags`	Yes	Live-verification warnings for entry-path, timing, or filing issues.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the return nature ('reasoning, review level, and canonical MCP resources') and explicitly noting what it does not do ('instead of rate tables'). This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations beyond the annotation flags.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential clarifications about the output and limitations. No filler or redundant phrasing; every element earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, annotations, and complete parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context for a conceptual comparison tool. It clarifies the conceptual scope and output format, though it could be improved by mentioning typical use cases or when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, including an enum for employment_type. The description does not add parameter-specific detail but benefits from the high schema coverage. Since the description does not supplement the schema, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Compare Beckham versus standard Spanish resident taxation') and distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing the conceptual nature and output format ('reasoning, review level, and canonical MCP resources instead of rate tables'). It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 implies usage scenarios (comparing regimes conceptually) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as check_beckham_eligibility or get_residency_path. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

All Spain Legal by Legal Fournier tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_paid_call_availability and get_paid_consultation_options overlap somewhat: one reads live availability for the 45-minute call while the other covers broader consultation options including that same call. This minor overlap is manageable given the clear descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_, compare_, create_, explain_, get_, route_, run_) with only minor deviations like the verbose 'create_legal_fournier_contact_request' and the slightly odd 'get_paid_call_availability'. Overall readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

The 11 tools are well-scoped for a Spain legal advisory server, covering eligibility, comparison, process explanation, visa/residency guidance, and client engagement. This is an appropriate size that avoids bloat while providing a complete service.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core domain well: Beckham regime checks, tax comparison, NIE process, visa/residency guidance, and Legal Fournier consultation/contact flows. Missing are transactional tools like booking directly or tracking requests, but the paid consultation options provide endpoints for those actions, so agents can work around gaps.

Resources

Need Help?