mcp-server

Withholding Map

withholding_map

Read-only

Treaty withholding-tax rates (dividends/interest/royalties) for a from→to corridor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	End of the date range, ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`from`	Yes	Start of the date range, ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD).

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."

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / from / description
```
Added value: +"Start of the date range, ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD)."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / from / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "2026-01-01"
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / to / description
```
Added value: +"End of the date range, ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD)."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / to / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "2026-12-31"
+]
```

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safe-lookup profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no further behavioural context (no source of the rates, no effective-date semantics, no coverage limits), which is acceptable given the annotations but adds little.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is tight, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the central ambiguity — are 'from'/'to' dates or countries? — is unresolved and the description does not address it. For a tool whose parameters are the whole input surface, that gap is material.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema describes 'from' and 'to' as start/end of a date range (ISO dates), while the description calls them a 'from→to corridor' — i.e. a jurisdiction pair. That is a direct semantic conflict that will mislead the agent about what to pass, so this falls below the baseline-3 that full schema coverage would normally justify.

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 names a concrete resource (treaty withholding-tax rates), the income types covered (dividends/interest/royalties), and the scope (a from→to corridor), so an agent knows what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as compare_treaty_position or get_country_tax, which a reader could plausibly mistake for the same lookup.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite several sibling tools (compare_treaty_position, get_country_tax, flag_cfc_poe_risk) that overlap in topic. The agent is left to infer the routing itself.

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.