Skip to main content
Glama

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
programme_idYesProgramme id as returned by list_programmes (e.g. "st-kitts-cbi"). Not a country name and not a website slug.

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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
      +]
  3. 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"
      +}
  4. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful detail that output is 'published processing time plus the stage breakdown where available,' disclosing both content and a coverage limitation, but says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, or behavior when stages are missing.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, and the core deliverable is front-loaded. It is short to the point of possibly under-specifying, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description adequately conveys what the tool produces. Given the low complexity (one required param, read-only), it is nearly complete; only the missing sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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 single programme_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the 'not a country name' warning). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('timeline for a programme') and clarifies the scope as published processing time plus stage breakdown. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling get_processing_times, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The phrase 'where available' hints at a coverage caveat but doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this tool over get_processing_times or estimate_total_cost.

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.