Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.mirabello-consultancy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Build Source-of-Wealth Pack

build_sow_pack
Read-only

Source-of-Wealth / Source-of-Funds evidence pack: given a wealth-origin type (e.g. business_sale, inheritance, ipo_liquidity_event, real_estate_sale, employment_income, crypto_asset_gains) and an optional destination context (a CBI/RBI programme, generic private-bank onboarding, trustee acceptance, or EU AML account-opening), returns the documentary evidence typically required — core + corroborating documents, the context overlay (programme SoF requirements + extra due-diligence), and common red flags. Grounded in FATF/Wolfsberg standards + programme due-diligence rules. INFORMATION ONLY — lists the evidence usually required, never asserts a case is compliant. Call with no args to list available origins and contexts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
originNoCountry the applicant is relocating FROM, as a country name.
contextNoFree-text background about the applicant's situation, used to tailor the answer.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent only when the request could not be fulfilled.
termsNoAcceptable-use and information-not-advice terms.
sourceNoAttribution for the data.
providerNoAlways "Mirabello Consultancy".
disclaimerNoInformation, not legal/tax/financial/immigration advice; figures indicative.
data_updatedNoDate the underlying dataset was last updated.
book_a_consultationNoURL to book a Mirabello consultation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Added value: +"Free-text background about the applicant's situation, used to tailor the answer."
    • addedInput schema / properties / origin / description
      Added value: +"Country the applicant is relocating FROM, as a country name."
    • addedInput schema / properties / origin / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "South Africa"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Mirabello response envelope. Tool-specific fields vary; the provenance/disclaimer envelope is always present.",
+  "properties": {
+    "book_a_consultation": {
+      "description": "URL to book a Mirabello consultation.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "data_updated": {
+      "description": "Date the underlying dataset was last updated.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "description": "Information, not legal/tax/financial/immigration advice; figures indicative.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Present only when the request could not be fulfilled.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "provider": {
+      "description": "Always \"Mirabello Consultancy\".",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "description": "Attribution for the data.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "terms": {
+      "description": "Acceptable-use and information-not-advice terms.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating 'INFORMATION ONLY', that it never asserts compliance, and that output is grounded in FATF/Wolfsberg and programme rules. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph but front-loads the purpose and packs useful examples into the flow. Some repetition and length could be trimmed, but overall every sentence contributes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers outputs, standards grounding, no-args behavior, and info-only status, and an output schema exists. However, the unresolved conflict between the described 'wealth-origin type' and the schema's 'origin = country' leaves a critical gap for successful invocation, so it is not complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema documents origin as the applicant's relocating-from country, but the description treats origin as a wealth-origin type (business_sale, inheritance, etc.) and context as destination context. This is a direct contradiction in the tool's core input semantics, so an agent cannot reliably fill the parameters from the description. High schema coverage only makes the mismatch more glaring.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific deliverable (documentary evidence pack) and the inputs that drive it, and the output is clear: core/corroborating documents, context overlay, red flags. It does not explicitly compare against siblings like get_document_checklist or compliance_checklist, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a concrete usage tip ('Call with no args to list available origins and contexts') and states the information-only caveat. It never says when to prefer this tool over sibling evidence/checklist tools, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources