mcp-server

Estimate Timeline

estimate_timeline

Read-only

Step-by-step expected timeline for a programme: published processing time plus the stage breakdown where available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`programme_id`	Yes	Programme id as returned by list_programmes (e.g. "st-kitts-cbi"). Not a country name and not a website slug.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Present only when the request could not be fulfilled.
`terms`	No	Acceptable-use and information-not-advice terms.
`source`	No	Attribution for the data.
`provider`	No	Always "Mirabello Consultancy".
`disclaimer`	No	Information, not legal/tax/financial/immigration advice; figures indicative.
`data_updated`	No	Date the underlying dataset was last updated.
`book_a_consultation`	No	URL to book a Mirabello consultation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / programme_id / description

Added value: +"Programme id as returned by list_programmes (e.g. \"st-kitts-cbi\"). Not a country name and not a website slug."

addedInput schema / properties / programme_id / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "st-kitts-cbi"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedJul 27, 2026

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"
+}

AddedJun 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance: the stage breakdown is only included 'where available', implying possible partial output. Beyond that, no deep behavioral detail is given, but the bar is lower due to 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Step-by-step' conveys the format, 'expected timeline for a programme' conveys the scope, and 'where available' conveys a caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the output nature and the data availability caveat. It does not address choice relative to close siblings, but that gap is already scored under usage guidelines.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents programme_id with an example and a clarification that it is not a country name or website slug. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

Description states a specific verb 'estimate' and resource 'timeline for a programme', and details the content: published processing time plus stage breakdown. The 'step-by-step' phrasing clarifies output format, and the content clearly distinguishes this from the close sibling get_processing_times, which likely returns only raw processing times.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_processing_times or estimate_total_cost. Usage is implied through the purpose, but the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool.

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

All mcp-server tools Inspect

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.