Skip to main content
Glama

Check Eligibility

check_eligibility
Read-only

Check which programmes a given nationality can realistically apply to: published nationality restrictions/suspensions (e.g. Russia/Belarus/Iran policies), EU-citizen applicability, minimum age and core requirements. Factual published policies only — final acceptance always rests with government due diligence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNooptional filter
nationalityYesapplicant nationality (country name, e.g. "Iran", "India")
programme_idNooptional: check one programme in detail

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, when it is not Mirabello Consultancy itself.
book_urlNoLink to request a consultation with a Mirabello specialist, for a personal case.
providerNoAlways "Mirabello Consultancy".
disclaimerNoInformation, not legal/tax/financial/immigration advice; figures indicative.
data_updatedNoDate the underlying dataset was last updated.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / book_a_consultation
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "URL to book a Mirabello consultation.",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / book_url
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Link to request a consultation with a Mirabello specialist, for a personal case.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / source / description
      Previous value: -"Attribution for the data."New value: +"Attribution for the data, when it is not Mirabello Consultancy itself."
  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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: results are limited to factual published policies and final acceptance rests with government due diligence, telling the agent the output is advisory and potentially stale. It does not cover freshness/rate-limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the screening scope and followed by the disclaimer. The second sentence earns its place as an epistemic caveat rather than filler. Minor density in the colon-list, but no wasted prose.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies what structured fields cannot: the policy domains screened and the advisory nature of the result. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without opening another tool.

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% and the CBI/RBI enum is self-explanatory, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that nationality drives the screening, but adds nothing about the optional type filter or about what programme_id detail mode returns versus the default list mode.

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 verb and resource (check which programmes a nationality can apply to) and enumerates the screening dimensions: nationality restrictions/suspensions, EU-citizen applicability, minimum age, core requirements. It is clearly distinct from cost/timeline/compare siblings, but it never addresses the near-identical sibling check_maltese_citizenship_eligibility, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: this is a pre-application screening step over published policy. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. find_pathways, recommend_programmes, or check_maltese_citizenship_eligibility, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the required nationality input. The 'factual published policies only' caveat hints at scope but does not route the agent.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.