Skip to main content
Glama

Flag CFC / PoE Risk

flag_cfc_poe_risk
Read-only

Anti-avoidance & relocation-tax flags for a jurisdiction: CFC (controlled foreign company), GAAR, POEM/corporate-residence, economic substance, exit-tax detail and step-up-in-basis on becoming resident. The depth behind headline rates. Use ISO alpha-2. Indicative, not advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccYesISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, uppercase (e.g. "PT" Portugal, "AE" United Arab Emirates, "KN" St Kitts and Nevis).

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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cc / description
      Added value: +"ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, uppercase (e.g. \"PT\" Portugal, \"AE\" United Arab Emirates, \"KN\" St Kitts and Nevis)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / cc / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "PT",
      +  "AE"
      +]
  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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it states the output is 'indicative, not advice' (disclaiming reliability), and it scopes the content to jurisdictional tax-risk flags. This goes beyond the structured annotations by clarifying the tool's advisory nature.

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?

The description is tightly packed: three short sentences plus a caveat. It front-loads the core purpose ('Anti-avoidance & relocation-tax flags'), then enumerates key included items, contrasts with headline rates, and closes with a format reminder and disclaimer. No wasted words; every segment 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it defines the resource, gives the input format, scopes the content, and warns about applicability. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without reading the output schema.

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?

The schema already provides full coverage of the single parameter 'cc' with examples and explicit format ('uppercase'). The description repeats the ISO alpha-2 requirement, which adds marginal value but does not introduce new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb-resource combination: it flags anti-avoidance and relocation-tax risks for a jurisdiction, listing concrete components (CFC, GAAR, POEM, economic substance, exit tax, step-up). It explicitly contrasts with 'headline rates', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_country_tax. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and why it exists.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when depth beyond headline rates is needed. The phrase 'depth behind headline rates' implies a contrast with rate-only tools, and the caveat 'Indicative, not advice' sets expectations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.

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.