mcp-server

Wealth Index

get_wealth_index

Read-only

CLIENT-WEIGHTED wealth-protection composite over the Atlas pillars. Pass your own weights (any of tax_efficiency, structure_strength, residence_clarity, crypto_clarity, succession_certainty, regulatory_transparency, institutional_stability) to score jurisdictions for a SPECIFIC client profile — there is no single public "best" ranking because the right weighting depends on the client. Omit weights for an illustrative default composite. Pass cc for one jurisdiction, or limit for the top N. Pure projection over Mirabello-verified data; illustrative comparative score, NOT advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cc`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, uppercase (e.g. "PT" Portugal, "AE" United Arab Emirates, "KN" St Kitts and Nevis).
`limit`	No	Maximum number of items to return. Responses can be large; use this to keep the answer small.
`weights`	No	Optional weighting overrides for the index pillars, as an object of pillar name to weight; omit for the published default weights.

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.

Changed5 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"
+]
```

addedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Added value: +"Maximum number of items to return. Responses can be large; use this to keep the answer small."

addedInput schema / properties / limit / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  10
+]
```

addedInput schema / properties / weights / description

Added value: +"Optional weighting overrides for the index pillars, as an object of pillar name to weight; omit for the published default weights."

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a pure projection over Mirabello-verified data, produces an illustrative comparative score, and is expressly not advice. It also notes that results depend on client-specific weighting, which is useful for agent expectations.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: it states the core concept, lists the pillars, explains when to pass versus omit weights, describes cc/limit behavior, and adds an important disclaimer. Information is front-loaded with 'CLIENT-WEIGHTED' and the overall structure is efficient.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, annotations covering safety, and a 100% documented input schema, the description covers the remaining essential context: purpose, weighting philosophy, scoping options, and caveats. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly for both default and client-specific scenarios.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the exact accepted pillar names and explaining the semantics of weights, cc, and limit. It clarifies that weights are optional and that omitting them yields a default composite, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 identifies the resource: a client-weighted wealth-protection composite scoring jurisdictions across the Atlas pillars. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing that there is no single public 'best' ranking and that weights must reflect the client profile. The specific pillar list and the cc/limit behavior make its function concrete.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: pass weights for a specific client profile, omit them for an illustrative default, and use cc/limit to scope results. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this one, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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.