mcp-server

Banking Access Landscape

get_banking_access

Read-only

NON-RESIDENT banking-access landscape per jurisdiction (US, AE, SG, HK, CH, LI, KY/Caribbean, plus the cross-jurisdiction EMI layer): corporate and personal lanes, fintech vs traditional institutions with indicative timelines/minimums, the common REJECTION causes, and CBI/Golden-Visa synergy facts (e.g. the UAE Golden Visa converts a hard non-resident case into an easy resident one; Caribbean correspondent de-risking realities for CBI clients; Swiss/Liechtenstein private-banking entry points). Honest doctrine: no account is ever guaranteed — file quality and right-institution matching are the real product. Pass cc (or EMI); pass type corporate|personal to focus; omit cc for the coverage list. Information, not advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	No	ISO alpha-2 (US, AE, SG, HK, CH, LI, KY) or EMI for the e-money layer
`type`	No	corporate \| personal (omit for both)

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 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"
+}

AddedJul 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the 'Honest doctrine' about no guarantee and the 'Information, not advice' disclaimer, which inform the agent about the nature and limitations of the response. This goes beyond the annotation basics.

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?

The description is a dense single paragraph but front-loads the core purpose ('NON-RESIDENT banking-access landscape per jurisdiction') before listing specifics. Every sentence contributes substantive content, though it is lengthy and could be broken into more digestible bullets. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers the jurisdictions, the type distinction, the fintech vs traditional comparison, timelines, rejection causes, CBI synergy facts, and the honest caveat. The agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to expect, without needing to open the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that cc can be a jurisdiction code or 'EMI', that type filters to corporate/personal, and that omitting cc returns the coverage list. This clarifies the intended usage and edge cases beyond the schema's simple string descriptions.

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 explicitly states the resource (non-resident banking-access landscape) and the verb (get), and enumerates the specific coverage: jurisdictions, corporate/personal lanes, fintech vs traditional institutions, timelines, minimums, rejection causes, and CBI/Golden-Visa synergy facts. This clearly distinguishes it from generic banking tools and even mentions the EMI layer, making its scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives clear parameter-usage instructions (pass cc, type, omit cc for coverage list) but does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like get_nonresident_banking or state when to choose this over others. It implies usage by detailing what it covers, but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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.