Spain Legal by Legal Fournier

Explain NIE Process

explain_nie_process

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the stable NIE and TIE workflow, the key procedural distinctions, and the canonical process resource for agents.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`forms`	Yes	Relevant forms and administrative references.
`steps`	Yes	Ordered process steps.
`summary`	Yes	Short overview of the NIE/TIE process.
`references`	Yes	Secondary Legal Fournier references.
`next_actions`	Yes	Next actions to progress the procedure.
`review_level`	Yes	How much human review is still advisable before treating the result as filing-ready.
`decision_trace`	Yes	Structured trace of the procedural distinctions that matter.
`common_mistakes`	Yes	Common mistakes in NIE/TIE processing.
`key_distinctions`	Yes	Key distinctions that agents should preserve.
`key_rules_applied`	Yes	Stable procedural 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 legal and administrative sources anchoring the procedure.
`suggested_follow_up_tools`	Yes	Tool calls that are likely to advance the analysis.
`current_verification_flags`	Yes	Live-verification warnings for office-level or fee-level volatility.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the output being 'stable' and 'canonical,' which communicates reliability and authoritative sourcing beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds meaningful detail (stable workflow, procedural distinctions, canonical resource). No wasted words.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what is being returned and why it's useful ('for agents'). The output schema handles return-value specifics, so the description doesn't need to enumerate them. The tool is simple enough that this is complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning, and it doesn't; it focuses on the output content instead. Schema coverage is 100% (no parameters), so no gaps exist.

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 returns 'the stable NIE and TIE workflow, the key procedural distinctions, and the canonical process resource for agents.' This uses a specific verb ('Return') and distinct resource (NIE/TIE workflow), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_visa_options or check_beckham_eligibility.

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 implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs the canonical NIE/TIE workflow or procedural distinctions. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over related immigration/legal tools.

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?