Skip to main content
Glama
Apex-Foundation

@apexfdn/copilot-mcp

Official
by Apex-Foundation
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Apex Jurisdiction

apex_jurisdiction
Read-onlyIdempotent

Recommends the optimal legal jurisdiction for Web3 projects by analyzing project type, fundraise structure, and regulatory needs across 28 crypto-native domiciles, providing a ranked verdict with trade-offs.

Instructions

Recommend the best legal jurisdiction for a Web3 project. Covers 28 crypto-native domiciles (UAE ADGM, VARA, RAK DAO, DMCC, Hong Kong, Singapore, Cayman, BVI, Bermuda, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, EU MiCA, Malta, Lithuania, Estonia, Gibraltar, UK, Bahamas, Delaware, Wyoming DAO LLC, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Seychelles, Isle of Man, Jersey, Japan, Korea, Panama, El Salvador). Returns a ranked verdict with the recommended pick, why it wins for this specific project, the trade-off the founder should accept, and alternates with the conditions under which they should be used. Use this when the founder is incorporating, restructuring, or evaluating a domicile their lawyer recommended.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectTypeYesThe category of the project. For projects spanning multiple categories, pick the one driving the licensing or token-issuance decision.
fundraiseYesFundraise structure. equity-only = SAFE/priced round only. token-only = SAFT or token sale only. hybrid = both.
fundraiseUsdNoTarget raise size in USD. Used to weight cost-of-setup against expected runway.
teamResidencyRegionNoWhere the core team is currently resident.
targetMarketRegionNoPrimary target customer or user region.
needsLicensedActivityYesWill the entity directly operate a licensed activity such as custody, brokerage, exchange, regulated stablecoin issuance, or money transmission? If unsure, set false. Most token-only foundations do NOT need this.
institutionalSensitivityNoHow much weight to give Tier 1 LP / CEX / MM comfort with the domicile. high = institutional-led raise, regulated venue listing on roadmap. low = community / retail driven.
taxSensitivityNoHow much weight to give corporate tax rate.
speedToLaunchNoTimeline urgency. high = need entity in 30 days. low = comfortable with 6-12 month build.
descriptionNoOptional free-form project description for context. Helps the polish layer write a grounded narrative. Does not affect ranking.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
rankingsYesRanked jurisdictions, best fit first.
narrativeNoShort narrative analysis.

Tool Definition Quality

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds details about the output structure (ranked verdict, recommendations, trade-offs, alternates) and coverage (28 domiciles), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 a single paragraph with a clear structure: purpose, coverage, output, usage guidance. It is concise with no wasted words, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 the tool's 10 parameters, annotations, and output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what to expect. It covers the main outputs and use cases. Minor omission: it does not explain the ranking algorithm, but that is not essential for invocation.

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 schema already explains each parameter clearly. The description adds the list of domiciles and notes that the optional 'description' parameter does not affect ranking. This provides additional context, but per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: recommend the best legal jurisdiction for a Web3 project. It lists the 28 domiciles covered and describes the output format. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like apex_code_review or apex_portfolio_match.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the founder is incorporating, restructuring, or evaluating a domicile their lawyer recommended.' While it doesn't specify when not to use it, the positive use cases are clear and adequately inform the agent.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Apex-Foundation/copilot-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server