Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.mirabello-consultancy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Choice-of-Law Options

choice_of_law_options
Read-only

Which law may govern a cross-border family succession, matrimonial property and divorce, and whether NATIONALITY opens an election. From nationalities held, habitual residence, asset situs and marital status, returns the default applicable law (EU Succession Reg 650/2012 Art 21; Swiss PILA last domicile), the instruments in scope (650/2012 Art 22; Matrimonial Property Reg 2016/1103 Art 22, 18 states; Rome III Art 5, 17 states; Swiss professio juris Arts 90-91), the elections available, hard TIMING rules (2016/1103 and Rome III need the nationality at the time of the agreement; Swiss professio juris is VOID if Swiss nationality is later acquired), situs overrides (e.g. French Code civil art. 913), and the trade-off: a common-law election swaps a FIXED reserved share for a DISCRETIONARY family claim. Returns no-useful-election where nationality opens nothing. Every election needs a properly executed declaration. INFORMATION ONLY, NOT LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE. Pass ISO alpha-2 codes only, never personal data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marriedNoWhether the applicant is married — affects family pricing and some eligibility rules.
asset_situsNoISO alpha-2 codes where assets are situated.
nationalitiesNoISO alpha-2 codes of nationalities held.
habitual_residenceNoISO alpha-2 of current habitual residence.
spouse_nationalitiesNoArray of the spouse's citizenships as country names.

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 / married / description
      Added value: +"Whether the applicant is married — affects family pricing and some eligibility rules."
    • addedInput schema / properties / spouse_nationalities / description
      Added value: +"Array of the spouse's citizenships as country names."
    • addedInput schema / properties / spouse_nationalities / examples
      Added value: +[
+  [
+    "Brazil"
+  ]
+]
  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

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns no-useful-election when nationality opens nothing, warns that Swiss professio juris is VOID if Swiss nationality is later acquired, flags hard timing rules, and states that every election needs a properly executed declaration. It also adds input-format and data-privacy constraints plus an information-only disclaimer.

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 dense but information-rich, with the core question front-loaded and no filler or marketing language. It is one long paragraph and could benefit from bullet structure, but each legal detail materially helps the agent understand the analysis.

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?

For a complex legal-analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: instruments, elections, timing, situs overrides, no-useful-election handling, and execution requirements. The main gaps are that spouse_nationalities is not integrated into the narrative and sibling-selection guidance is only implicit.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description creates a real conflict: it says 'Pass ISO alpha-2 codes only,' while the spouse_nationalities schema explicitly expects country names (example 'Brazil'). It does add useful timing nuance around nationality at the time of the agreement, but the overgeneralized coding instruction could mislead an agent into passing the wrong format.

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 opens with a concrete question and then names exactly what the tool returns: default applicable law, instruments in scope, elections available, timing rules, situs overrides, and the trade-off involved. This is a specific verb-plus-resource definition with enough detail to distinguish it from sibling tools like succession_conflict_map or matrimonial_regime_screen.

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?

The domain framing ('cross-border family succession, matrimonial property and divorce') implies when the tool is relevant, and it lists the inputs used. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like succession_conflict_map or matrimonial_regime_screen, and it gives no exclusionary guidance.

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