mcp-server

Subscribe to Programme-Change Alerts

subscribe_changes

Subscribe to verified programme-change alerts (price changes, launches, corrections — each linked to the official source). Agents: provide webhook_url (HTTPS POST on each change). Humans: provide email (explicit consent required). Optional programme_ids filter. Returns a subscription id + unsubscribe URL. Each call creates a separate subscription, so repeating it duplicates the alerts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	email for change alerts (requires consent:true)
`consent`	No	required true when email is given (GDPR)
`website`	No	leave blank (spam honeypot)
`webhook_url`	No	HTTPS endpoint to POST change entries to (for agents/systems)
`programme_ids`	No	optional filter — only these programmes

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."

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 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses side effects and delivery mechanics: HTTPS POST fires on each change, email requires explicit GDPR consent, each call creates a separate non-idempotent subscription, and a subscription id plus unsubscribe URL are returned. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating state.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by audience-specific usage, the optional filter, the return contract, and the duplication caveat. It is dense but every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the key return values (subscription id, unsubscribe URL) and covers consent, delivery mechanism, and idempotency risk for all five parameters. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates schema facts (webhook_url is an HTTPS POST target, email requires consent, programme_ids is an optional filter) and adds only the agents-vs-humans framing, which is useful but not new parameter syntax or format detail.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Subscribe to') and resource ('verified programme-change alerts') and enumerates what the alerts cover (price changes, launches, corrections, each linked to the official source). No sibling tool offers subscription functionality, so it is trivially distinguishable from the surrounding lookup/compare tools.

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?

It gives clear per-audience routing ('Agents: provide webhook_url' vs 'Humans: provide email') and a repeat-call warning ('each call creates a separate subscription, so repeating it duplicates the alerts'). It does not state explicit when-not conditions, but there are no competing alternatives among the siblings to steer away from.

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.