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.
`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.

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the corridor scoping but no further behavioral detail such as coverage limits or how the from→to corridor is interpreted; this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the core resource and scope are front-loaded. Every word adds domain information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema, read-only annotations, and complete parameter descriptions handle much of the load, but the central 'from→to corridor' concept is under-specified relative to a schema that only contains dates. An agent cannot tell from the description whether the corridor is a time range or a country pair.

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 date-range semantics of from and to are fully documented and the description doesn't need to compensate. The phrase 'from→to corridor' adds no parameter-level meaning and could be read as a country pair, creating slight ambiguity, but it doesn't contradict the schema.

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 identifies the resource (treaty withholding-tax rates), the covered income types (dividends/interest/royalties), and the corridor scoping. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name and noun phrase make the retrieval action clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like compare_treaty_position, but the specific tax-rate resource is unambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The description merely says what the tool returns, so an agent must infer applicability from the resource type alone, especially given close siblings such as compare_treaty_position and get_country_tax.

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.