Spain Legal by Legal Fournier

Route To Legal Fournier Help

route_to_legal_fournier_help

Read-onlyIdempotent

Decide whether a Spain legal matter should be escalated to Legal Fournier and return a service match, preparation checklist, and ready-to-send handoff message.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`area`	Yes	Area of Spain legal help that needs human escalation.
`urgency`	No	How quickly the user needs human help.
`blockers`	No	Known blockers that make a self-serve answer less reliable.
`already_filed`	No	Whether the user already has a live filing, notice, denial, or active procedure.
`preferred_language`	No	Preferred language for the human handoff.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`summary`	Yes	Short explanation of the handoff recommendation.
`urgency`	Yes	Urgency level used for the handoff recommendation.
`why_now`	Yes	Reasons supporting escalation.
`references`	Yes	Secondary Legal Fournier references for the handoff.
`booking_url`	Yes	Preferred consultation-booking URL when the user wants direct legal advice now.
`intake_fields`	Yes	Structured intake payload an agent can map into a contact form, CRM, or booking handoff.
`should_escalate`	Yes	Whether human escalation is recommended from the supplied facts.
`what_to_prepare`	Yes	What the agent should gather for the handoff.
`recommended_service`	Yes
`agent_handoff_message`	Yes	Ready-to-send summary an agent can reuse when escalating to Legal Fournier.
`related_resource_uris`	Yes	Canonical MCP resources an agent can read next without leaving the server.
`representation_notice`	Yes	Legal notice explaining that contact or booking does not itself create representation.
`suggested_follow_up_tools`	Yes	Tool calls that are likely to advance the analysis.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 operation's safety profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance: the output is a 'ready-to-send handoff message,' implying the tool does not actually send the message but prepares it. This is beyond what annotations provide, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Decide whether...'), then lists the three outputs. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase adds value.

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 that the tool has an output schema (so return values need not be detailed in the description), annotations that clarify safety, and a moderate number of parameters (all schema-documented), the description covers the core purpose and outcome. It doesn't mention explicit edge cases or prerequisites, but it's sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role within the sibling set.

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%, with all five parameters (area, urgency, blockers, already_filed, preferred_language) fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Decide whether a Spain legal matter should be escalated to Legal Fournier' and specifies the deliverables ('service match, preparation checklist, and ready-to-send handoff message'). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_legal_fournier_tool and create_legal_fournier_contact_request, which focus on execution or contact creation rather than the escalation decision.

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 provides clear context: it is used when a Spain legal matter may require escalation to Legal Fournier. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternative sibling tools, but the core scenario is well implied, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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?