Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.mirabello-consultancy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Succession Conflict Map

succession_conflict_map
Read-only

Cross-border succession conflict-of-laws position for a jurisdiction: which law governs succession (habitual residence / nationality / situs of assets), EU Succession Regulation 650/2012 (Brussels IV) applicability and whether a professio juris (choice of national law in a will) is available, any clawback of lifetime gifts into reserved shares or renvoi, plus trust/foundation interaction and the headline cross-border planning point. Informational, not advice. Use ISO alpha-2.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccYesISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, uppercase (e.g. "PT" Portugal, "AE" United Arab Emirates, "KN" St Kitts and Nevis).

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, when it is not Mirabello Consultancy itself.
book_urlNoLink to request a consultation with a Mirabello specialist, for a personal case.
providerNoAlways "Mirabello Consultancy".
disclaimerNoInformation, not legal/tax/financial/immigration advice; figures indicative.
data_updatedNoDate the underlying dataset was last updated.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • 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."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+]
  3. 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"
+}
  4. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful liability boundary ('Informational, not advice') and signals that the payload is a multi-factor doctrinal position rather than a single number. It adds no auth, rate-limit, or coverage-limit context beyond that, which is acceptable but not rich given annotations already carry the operation semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the two trailing sentences are short and useful. But the middle of the description is one sprawling comma-chained sentence enumerating return contents (clawback, renvoi, trust/foundation interaction, planning point) that largely duplicate what the existing output schema already conveys, for a single-parameter tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the single parameter is fully specified in the schema; annotations cover read-only safety. The description is complete for invocation and adequately signals doctrinal scope. The remaining gap is routing: no indication of when this tool should be chosen over its closest siblings.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 with uppercase requirement and examples (PT, AE, KN). The description's 'Use ISO alpha-2' merely restates that, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific resource (cross-border succession conflict-of-laws position for a jurisdiction) and enumerates the exact doctrines covered: governing law connecting factors, EU Regulation 650/2012 applicability, professio juris, clawback, renvoi, trust/foundation interaction. An agent can tell it covers conflict-of-laws, which is conceptually distinct from forced_heirship_risk or choice_of_law_options. However, it never names those siblings or draws the boundary explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is 'Informational, not advice' and 'Use ISO alpha-2' — a disclaimer and a format rule, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus forced_heirship_risk, choice_of_law_options, or matrimonial_regime_screen, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context (cross-border estate planning) is only implied by the subject matter.

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