Spain Legal by Legal Fournier

Get Residency Path

get_residency_path

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explain the next permanent-residency or nationality milestone from current status and time in Spain, with explicit caution flags for counting issues.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`current_status`	Yes	Current Spanish immigration or nationality status.
`years_in_spain`	Yes	Years already spent in Spain under the relevant stay or residence history.
`nationality_track`	No	Optional nationality timeline group for a more specific nationality answer.
`has_absence_concerns`	No	Whether absences or continuity problems may weaken the residence or nationality clock.
`special_nationality_basis`	No	Optional basis for the one-year nationality track when that exception is being claimed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`summary`	Yes	Short explanation of where the person sits on the path.
`milestones`	Yes	Key milestones on the path.
`next_steps`	Yes	Immediate next steps.
`references`	Yes	Secondary Legal Fournier references.
`review_level`	Yes	How much human review is still advisable before treating the result as filing-ready.
`caution_notes`	Yes	Important cautions.
`decision_trace`	Yes	Structured trace of the main timing factors.
`key_rules_applied`	Yes	Stable rules applied by the tool.
`nationality_status`	Yes	Nationality stage given the provided track information.
`related_resource_uris`	Yes	Canonical MCP resources an agent can read next without leaving the server.
`official_legal_sources`	Yes	Official legal sources anchoring the residence and nationality timeline analysis.
`suggested_follow_up_tools`	Yes	Tool calls that are likely to advance the analysis.
`current_verification_flags`	Yes	Live-verification warnings for route, continuity, or timing issues.
`permanent_residency_status`	Yes	Long-term residence stage.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, signaling safe read-only behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool generates 'explicit caution flags for counting issues,' which is a behavioral characteristic not present in annotations. This is useful context for the agent to anticipate extra guidance in responses.

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 packs the verb, resource, inputs, and output characteristics. It is front-loaded, immediately stating the tool's purpose, and contains no fluff or redundant information.

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?

With a rich schema (5 params, enums, descriptions) and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. It provides the high-level purpose and alerts to caution flags, which is sufficient for an agent to select the tool. A slight deduction is made because the description does not mention the various nationality tracks or exceptions, but those are well-covered in the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description merely repeats the two required inputs (current status and time in Spain) without adding deeper semantic meaning. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explains the next permanent-residency or nationality milestone based on current status and time in Spain. The verb 'explain' and specific resource make it distinct from sibling tools like get_visa_options or explain_nie_process. It also highlights a unique output trait (caution flags) that further differentiates it.

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 the tool: when a user needs to know the next residency or nationality milestone. It provides clear context by specifying inputs (current status, time in Spain) and outputs (caution flags). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude any sibling tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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?