Spain Legal by Legal Fournier

Create Legal Fournier Contact Request

create_legal_fournier_contact_request

Create an accepted Legal Fournier lead from an agent workflow after explicit user consent. This is a consequential action: call only when the user has asked to contact Legal Fournier and has consented to follow-up.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	User's name for Legal Fournier follow-up.
`email`	Yes	User's email address for Legal Fournier follow-up.
`phone`	No	Optional phone or WhatsApp number.
`lead_id`	No	Optional upstream lead ID.
`urgency`	No	Requested urgency for Legal Fournier review.
`agent_app`	No	Name of the agent app or connector.
`tool_name`	No	Tool or workflow that generated this contact request.
`legal_area`	Yes	Main legal or tax area for the request.
`risk_flags`	No	Known risk flags or complexity triggers.
`source_url`	No	Optional URL where the agent flow started.
`case_summary`	Yes	Non-sensitive summary of the matter to send to Legal Fournier.
`referrer_url`	No	Optional referrer URL.
`tool_context`	No	Short note about the tool flow that produced this lead.
`missing_facts`	No	Important facts still missing for lawyer review.
`source_surface`	No	Agent surface sending the request.
`idempotency_key`	No	Stable idempotency key for safe retries.
`confirmed_consent`	Yes	Must be true only after the user explicitly asks the agent to contact Legal Fournier.
`consent_to_contact`	Yes	Must be true only after the user consents to Legal Fournier contacting them.
`preferred_language`	No	Preferred follow-up language.
`agent_handoff_message`	No	Agent-prepared handoff summary, ideally from route_to_legal_fournier_help.
`related_resource_uris`	No	MCP resource URIs already used in the analysis.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the request was accepted by Legal Fournier.
`source`	Yes	Lead source bucket.
`lead_id`	Yes	Public lead identifier recorded in WordPress.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable confirmation message.
`entry_id`	Yes	Internal WordPress lead entry ID.
`admin_queue`	Yes	Where Legal Fournier staff can review the request.
`booking_url`	Yes	Site-controlled consultation booking URL to offer when the user wants to speak with Legal Fournier now.
`lead_status`	Yes	Whether this was a new accepted lead or an idempotent duplicate.
`next_actions`	Yes	Safe follow-up instructions for the calling agent.
`source_surface`	Yes	Agent surface recorded for attribution.
`representation_notice`	Yes	Notice that contact request submission does not create representation.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description needn't state it's a write. It adds meaningful context by warning: 'This is a consequential action,' and by specifying the consent prerequisite. This is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core action; the second delivers a critical warning. Ideal structure.

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 tool's complexity (21 params, 6 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the action, the consent gate, and the workflow origin. It doesn't need to enumerate params or return values, as those are covered by schema.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions on all 21 parameters, including the const:true consent fields. The description reinforces the consent requirement but adds little beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 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 the tool's function: 'Create an accepted Legal Fournier lead from an agent workflow after explicit user consent.' This is a specific verb+resource+context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like route_to_legal_fournier_help or find_legal_fournier_tool by focusing on actual lead creation.

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?

The description gives an explicit condition: 'call only when the user has asked to contact Legal Fournier and has consented to follow-up.' It provides a clear when-to-use context but doesn't mention specific alternative tools or when-not-to-use, so it's slightly below the highest bar.

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?