estate-planning

check_rnrb

Check residence nil-rate band eligibility and amount (England & Wales 2025/26): up to £175,000 per person where a home you own (or owned) passes to direct descendants, doubled for a married couple / civil partners, plus a late spouse's transferred allowance — capped at the home's value and tapered by £1 for every £2 the estate exceeds £2m. Illustrative check with plain-English reasons.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`married`	Yes	Married or in a civil partnership (combined/doubled allowance on the second death)
`ownsHome`	Yes	You own (or owned) a home that is — or was — your residence
`homeValue`	Yes	Value of the home (£) — caps the available allowance
`estateValue`	Yes	Total estate value including the home (£) — drives the £2m taper
`transferredRnrb`	No	Late spouse's unused residence nil-rate band (£), capped £175,000
`passesToDescendants`	Yes	The home passes to children/grandchildren (step, adopted and foster children count)
`transferredAllowance`	No	Claim a late spouse's/civil partner's unused residence allowance
`downsizedAfterJuly2015`	No	Sold or downsized after 8 July 2015 — surfaces the downsizing-addition note (never changes the numbers)

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. It discloses the tool is an illustrative check, explains key behavioral traits like tapering, capping, and doubling, and notes the downsizing note does not affect numbers. However, it does not state whether the calculation is binding or for estimation.

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 description is a single dense paragraph with detailed numerical info. While informative, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the calculation logic but does not describe the return format. 'Illustrative check with plain-English reasons' hints at output but is vague; missing details on whether output includes eligibility, amount, or reasons.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining how each parameter fits into the calculation logic (e.g., homeValue caps allowance, estateValue drives taper). This integrates parameter meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool checks residence nil-rate band eligibility and amount, with specific thresholds and conditions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate_iht by focusing solely on RNRB, and uses specific verbs and resource.

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 RNRB is a component of IHT, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_iht. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the context of RNRB is clear.

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?