Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.mirabello-consultancy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Processing Times

get_processing_times
Read-only

Processing-time estimate for one programme (by id) or all.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoProgramme id as returned by list_programmes (e.g. "dominica-cbi", "greece-gv", "portugal-gv"). Not a country name and not a website slug.

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 / id / description
      Added value: +"Programme id as returned by list_programmes (e.g. \"dominica-cbi\", \"greece-gv\", \"portugal-gv\"). Not a country name and not a website slug."
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "dominica-cbi",
+  "greece-gv"
+]
  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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds the distinction of 'estimate' (not exact) and the scope option (one or all), which adds behavioral context. It doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only, but the annotation covers that. The description doesn't mention potential rate limits or data freshness, but for a simple read tool, this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently conveys the two usage modes. Every word earns its place. It is concise without being under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter), has an output schema (so return format is covered), and annotations handle safety. The description clarifies the scope (one or all) which is important for optionality. It doesn't mention error cases or what happens if the id is invalid, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable. A 4 is appropriate; it could be a 5 if it mentioned that omitting id returns all programmes, but the description already implies that with 'or all'.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter, including examples and a clear note that it's a programme id, not a country name or website slug. The description reinforces the parameter by saying 'by id or all', which clarifies that id is optional. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds value by explaining the 'all' behavior, but the schema already has examples. Baseline is 3, and the description's clarification of the optionality and the 'or all' case earns a 4.

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 clearly states the tool returns processing-time estimates, for either a single programme (by id) or all programmes. The verb 'get' and the resource 'processing times' are specific, and it differentiates from siblings like estimate_timeline and get_programme which likely cover different aspects. The phrase 'or all' clarifies the optional id parameter.

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 implicitly indicates when to use it: when processing-time estimates are needed, for one programme or all. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but given the sibling list includes estimate_timeline and get_programme, the description could be clearer. However, the context of a single id from list_programmes provides enough guidance for most cases. I would have liked an explicit note about using estimate_timeline for broader timeline estimation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-server toolsInspect
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.

Resources