Spain Legal by Legal Fournier

Run Legal Fournier Tool

run_legal_fournier_tool

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a Legal Fournier public calculator or screener directly inside MCP, returning intake screening, missing facts, complexity flags, and handoff guidance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`facts`	No	General facts for the direct MCP screening run.
`numbers`	No	Optional numeric facts for calculator-style intake.
`tool_id`	Yes	Public Legal Fournier tool to run directly inside MCP.
`user_goal`	No	Natural-language user goal or case summary.
`complexity_signals`	No	Signals that should trigger human review.
`preferred_language`	No	Preferred public page language for selected_url.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Public tool title.
`outcome`	Yes	Direct MCP screening outcome.
`summary`	Yes	Short explanation of the direct MCP run.
`tool_id`	Yes	Tool that was run directly in MCP.
`handoff_url`	Yes	Legal Fournier consultation handoff URL.
`legal_notice`	Yes	General legal notice agents must preserve.
`next_actions`	Yes	Immediate next actions for the agent.
`selected_url`	Yes	Best public URL after applying preferred language.
`missing_facts`	Yes	Facts the agent should collect before relying on the screening output.
`numeric_notes`	Yes	Calculator-style numeric notes, with current-law caveats.
`update_policy`	Yes	How this direct MCP runner should be updated and verified.
`handoff_reason`	Yes	Reason for the handoff recommendation or caveat.
`public_tool_url`	Yes	Canonical English public tool URL.
`complexity_flags`	Yes	Signals that make human review advisable.
`related_mcp_tools`	Yes	Other MCP tools paired with this direct run.
`selected_language`	Yes	Language used for selected_url.
`handoff_recommended`	Yes	Whether the direct MCP run recommends Legal Fournier human review.
`related_resource_uris`	Yes	Canonical MCP resources an agent can read next without leaving the server.
`direct_screening_notes`	Yes	Direct MCP screening notes and usage caveats.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the output categories (intake screening, missing facts, complexity flags, handoff guidance), which clarifies what the agent can expect from the run. There is 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and outcome. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 rich input schema (6 params, 2 enums, 100% coverage), output schema, and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It explains the purpose and return types. However, it lacks contextual pointers about how to choose between this generic runner and the specialized sibling tools, which is a minor gap in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for every parameter, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds minimal information about parameters, only implicitly referencing facts/user_goal through 'intake screening.' With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb and resource: 'Run a Legal Fournier public calculator or screener directly inside MCP.' It also lists the outputs ('intake screening, missing facts, complexity flags, and handoff guidance'), making the tool's role unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_legal_fournier_tool (which locates tools) and specific-purpose tools like 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or decision criteria such as 'use for any of the listed public calculators; for specialized checks use the dedicated tool.' The only implication is that it runs calculators, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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?