estate-planning

check_need_probate

Check whether a grant of probate (or letters of administration) is LIKELY to be needed in England & Wales, from what the person owned and how they owned it. Returns a guidance verdict — likely / maybe / unlikely — with per-asset reasons and next steps. Indicative only: every bank and institution sets its OWN probate threshold and decides asset by asset, so the honest answer always includes asking each one directly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`allToSpouse`	Yes	Everything passes to a surviving spouse/civil partner who owned it jointly
`soleProperty`	Yes	Property or land registered in the deceased's sole name
`jointProperty`	Yes	Property owned jointly — held as joint tenants it passes by survivorship
`largestBalance`	Yes	Largest single bank or building-society balance in their sole name
`soleInvestments`	Yes	Shares or investments held in their sole name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJun 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly states the tool is indicative, returns a verdict with reasons and next steps, and warns that each institution sets its own threshold. This provides adequate transparency about limitations, though it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only (implied by 'check').

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 two paragraphs with the core action in the first sentence. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the caveat sentence could be slightly trimmed. Overall, it earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description compensates well by explaining the output structure (verdict with per-asset reasons and next steps) and the indicative nature. It is complete for a check tool, though it could mention if the result is purely deterministic or requires external data.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only indirectly referencing inputs ('from what the person owned and how they owned it'). It does not elaborate on parameter details or constraints.

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 clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'whether a grant of probate is likely needed', specifies the jurisdiction (England & Wales), and distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_iht and estimate_probate_cost by focusing on the need for probate rather than costs or taxes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for preliminary probate need assessment and includes a caveat about institutional variability, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_iht or will_readiness_check. No direct exclusions or comparisons are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All estate-planning tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of UK estate planning (IHT, probate, LPAs, trusts, care costs, etc.) with clear boundaries. No overlap in purposes; an agent can easily distinguish between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., calculate_iht, check_need_probate, lookup_glossary). The naming is predictable and aids in understanding the function of each tool.

Tool Count5/5

16 tools is well-scoped for an estate planning domain. It covers major areas without being overwhelming, and each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers key estate planning topics (IHT, probate, LPAs, trusts, gifts, intestacy, care costs, will readiness). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for creating documents), but the consultation tool directs users to professional advice. Overall, a comprehensive educational surface.

Resources

Need Help?