mcp-server

Find Trust Jurisdictions

find_trust_jurisdictions

Read-only

Find trust & foundation jurisdictions for asset protection and succession planning (e.g. Cook Islands, Nevis, Cayman, Jersey, Liechtenstein), ranked by asset-protection strength, each with its statute, CRS status and EU-list status. Filter by vehicle (trust/foundation) or strong_protection. The wealth-structuring complement to the residence/citizenship pathways.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vehicle`	No	trust or foundation
`strong_protection`	No	True to require strong asset-protection legislation.

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.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 23, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / strong_protection / description
```
Added value: +"True to require strong asset-protection legislation."
```

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 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results are ranked by asset-protection strength and include statute, CRS status, and EU-list status. It also discloses filtering by vehicle or strong_protection, so an agent understands what the tool returns and how it behaves.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: purpose and examples are front-loaded, the ranking and output fields follow, then filter behavior and positioning relative to other tools. Every clause earns its place.

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 only two optional parameters, a full schema, an output schema, and safe read-only annotations, the description covers all an agent needs to invoke and interpret results. It even adds helpful domain positioning among a large sibling set.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that filtering is by vehicle or strong_protection, but adds no new format, constraints, or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('find') and resource ('trust & foundation jurisdictions'), with clear domain purpose (asset protection and succession planning). Concrete examples and the ranked-by-strength behavior make its scope unmistakable, and the closing complement clause distinguishes it from residence/citizenship tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context for when this is relevant: trust/foundation wealth structuring, asset protection, succession planning, with a positional hint that it complements residence/citizenship pathways. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use it, but the scenario context is strong enough to guide selection.

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.