mcp-server

Residence Evidence Checklist

residence_evidence_checklist

Read-only

Tax-residence TESTS + evidence factors for a jurisdiction: day-count thresholds, statutory test (e.g. UK SRT), connecting/ties factors (permanent home, centre of vital interests, habitual abode, family, accommodation, economic links), how residence ceases, and the documentary evidence that proves residence start/cease. Tests and factors only — NOT a residence determination. Use ISO alpha-2.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	Yes	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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by specifying that the result is a factual checklist of tests and evidence, not a determination, and by enumerating the categories of content returned. It does not describe data sourcing or edge cases, but the output schema covers return structure.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the substantive content, the second states the crucial limitation, and the third gives the input format. The parenthetical details are useful rather than decorative. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what content is included, what is excluded, and how to pass the country code. It does not mention jurisdiction coverage or behavior for unsupported codes, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity. Overall, an agent has enough to decide whether to invoke it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already documents the 'cc' parameter fully, including ISO alpha-2 format, uppercase requirement, and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'Use ISO alpha-2' line reinforces but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. This matches the baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's output: tax-residence tests and evidence factors for a jurisdiction, with a detailed list of included content. It distinguishes itself by explicitly stating what it is NOT ('NOT a residence determination'), which helps avoid confusion with analysis tools. It lacks an explicit action verb, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 a clear usage boundary: tests and factors only, not a residence determination, and instructs the caller to use ISO alpha-2 country codes. It does not name specific alternative tools for when a determination is actually needed, so it falls short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance. The exclusion it does provide is useful and directly actionable.

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.