mcp-server

Wealth Atlas

get_wealth_atlas

Read-only

The Mirabello Wealth-Protection Atlas — OBJECTIVE per-pillar sub-indices (0-100) for each jurisdiction: tax efficiency, structure strength, residence clarity, crypto clarity, succession certainty, regulatory transparency (international compliance alignment — NOT a secrecy score) and institutional stability (World Bank WGI, where sourced). No composite ranking — weightings depend on client facts; a client-weighted composite index is available separately. Pass cc for one jurisdiction, omit for all. Includes methodology + a de-risk note. INFORMATION, NOT ADVICE.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, uppercase (e.g. "PT" Portugal, "AE" United Arab Emirates, "KN" St Kitts and Nevis).

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026

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"
+]
```

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

A4.3/5.0

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the output is INFORMATION, NOT ADVICE; it includes methodology and a de-risk note; and it clarifies that the index is NOT a secrecy score. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding usage and caveats. Every sentence earns its place, though the long list of pillar names makes it slightly heavy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this much domain-specific nuance.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the single optional parameter is well documented, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to scope it, and important caveats (not advice, not a secrecy score, no composite ranking). A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the output format beyond mentioning sub-indices, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the cc parameter with examples and format. The description adds the key semantic detail that omitting cc returns all jurisdictions, which is not in the schema. This is a meaningful addition beyond the structured data.

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's purpose: it provides objective per-pillar sub-indices (0-100) for jurisdictions across seven named dimensions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a secrecy score and from a composite ranking, and the sibling list includes get_wealth_index and get_index, so this differentiation is valuable.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: pass cc for one jurisdiction, omit for all. It also explains that no composite ranking is provided and that a client-weighted composite index is available separately, which helps an agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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.