Skip to main content
Glama

estate-planning

by uk.co.simplyestate

will_readiness_check

Score estate-planning readiness against a checklist. Pass answers as a map of item id → true/false (ids: has_will, will_recent, executors_named, guardians_named, lpa_property, lpa_health, wishes_recorded, assets_listed; advanced: pension_nominations, digital_assets, business_succession, foreign_assets, life_insurance_trust). Missing or false items count as gaps. Returns a band: covered / gaps / urgent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesMap of checklist item id → true (in place) / false
hasChildrenYesHousehold includes children under 18 (enables the guardianship item)
includeAdvancedNoInclude the advanced/often-forgotten items

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
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 that the tool returns a band (covered/gaps/urgent), how answers are evaluated, and lists item ids. It does not mention side effects or auth needs, but for a read-only scoring tool, this is sufficient.

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?

The description is two sentences: first states purpose, second details inputs and output. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the output format (band). It covers all three parameters, including the role of hasChildren and includeAdvanced. For a moderate-complexity tool, this is complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds significant meaning: it lists the checklist item ids, explains that hasChildren enables guardianship, and that includeAdvanced adds advanced items. This goes far beyond the schema's basic type 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 scores estate-planning readiness against a checklist, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_iht or check_need_probate by focusing on a checklist-based readiness assessment.

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 explains when to use the tool (to score readiness) and what inputs are needed. It provides context for criteria (missing/false items count as gaps) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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

All estate-planning toolsInspect
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