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.
providerNoAlways "Mirabello Consultancy".
disclaimerNoInformation, not legal/tax/financial/immigration advice; figures indicative.
data_updatedNoDate the underlying dataset was last updated.
book_a_consultationNoURL to book a Mirabello consultation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+]
  2. 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"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating it is informational rather than advice and by summarizing what the output includes, including a headline cross-border planning point. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or caveats about legal authority, but for a read-only lookup these are less critical.

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 purposeful, front-loading the core purpose before listing specific legal topics. Every clause covers a distinct aspect of the tool's scope, and the closing instructions are short. It is a long single sentence, which slightly reduces scannability, but there is no fluff.

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 output schema exists and the single parameter is fully documented, the description covers everything needed: jurisdiction scope, the specific legal areas addressed, the professio juris and clawback nuances, trust/foundation interaction, and the planning-point output. It also explicitly frames the tool as informational, which is important for legal content. No critical calling context 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?

The input schema fully defines the single parameter cc with examples and format guidance, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description only repeats 'Use ISO alpha-2' without adding semantic nuance beyond the schema, so the schema carries the burden and the description neither requires compensation nor adds extra value.

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 as providing a cross-border succession conflict-of-laws position for a jurisdiction ozilist and enumerates the specific legal topics covered (governing law, EU Regulation 650/2012, professio juris, clawback, renvoi, trust/foundation interaction). It is unambiguous and distinct in subject matter, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like forced_heirship_risk or choice_of_law_options.

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: this is for jurisdiction-specific, cross-border succession conflict-of-laws questionsóand adds the operational instruction to supply an ISO alpha-2 code. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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