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, when it is not Mirabello Consultancy itself.
`book_url`	No	Link to request a consultation with a Mirabello specialist, for a personal case.
`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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026

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."

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for going beyond them: it discloses the ranking by asset-protection strength and the per-result fields (statute, CRS status, EU-list status). It does not discuss result volume or pagination, which keeps it short of 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the filters, then the positioning. The parenthetical jurisdiction examples are the only slightly expendable element, but they aid agent matching rather than padding.

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?

Only two optional params, 100% schema coverage, an output schema for return shape, and annotations covering safety. The description supplies the domain framing, ranking rationale, and result contents needed to select and call it correctly – nothing material is missing.

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 both parameters (vehicle, strong_protection) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Filter by vehicle (trust/foundation) or strong_protection' merely restates that, adding no syntax, defaults, or interaction semantics, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (trust & foundation jurisdictions), names the domain use case (asset protection, succession planning), gives concrete examples, and describes the ranking criterion. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_charity_jurisdictions, find_formation_jurisdictions, and find_low_tax.

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?

Explicitly says how to narrow results ('Filter by vehicle (trust/foundation) or strong_protection') and positions the tool against a family of alternatives ('the wealth-structuring complement to the residence/citizenship pathways'). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the sibling to prefer in a borderline case, so it is clear context rather than full routing 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 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.