mcp-server

Legal Name Change Rules

get_name_change

Read-only

LEGAL NAME CHANGE rules for a jurisdiction: whether a change is permitted, on what grounds (or none), which authority decides (civil registry or court), who may apply, the process, indicative cost and timeline, the effect on the passport, transliteration rules for rendering a name into Latin script, and whether the former name persists on records held abroad. Commonly needed after marriage, after naturalisation, and when a non-Latin name must be rendered consistently across documents. Pass cc for one jurisdiction; omit for the covered list. Decided solely by the competent registry or court; Mirabello informs and orchestrates but does not file applications. Information, not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	No	ISO alpha-2 country code, e.g. GB, AE, CH

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."

AddedAug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it clarifies the tool only informs and orchestrates ('does not file applications'), states the decision is made by the registry/court, and flags it is 'information, not legal advice'. This is valuable scoping not present in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource name and the returned-field enumeration, then usage context, then parameter semantics. The enumeration is long and dense but each clause conveys distinct scope; only minor trimming is possible.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still scopes coverage and disclaims application filing and legal advice. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the cc field is already documented, but the description adds the crucial omission semantics ('omit for the covered list'), which the schema does not convey. That extra meaning lifts it above the baseline 3.

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 resource (legal name-change rules) and enumerates exactly what is returned: permissibility, grounds, deciding authority, applicants, process, cost, timeline, passport effect, transliteration, and persistence of the former name. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_passport_renewal or get_country.

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?

Gives concrete usage context ('commonly needed after marriage, after naturalisation, and when a non-Latin name must be rendered') and explains the cc semantics. However, it names no alternative sibling tools and gives no explicit when-not 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.