MCP-Dubai

golden_visa_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen UAE Golden Visa financial thresholds across entrepreneur, skilled-professional, investor, and prior-exit routes; returns route notes, not final eligibility.

Instructions

Screen financial thresholds for Golden Visa routes; this is not final eligibility.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_value_aed`	No	Deprecated. ICP dropped the AED 500,000 project-valuation test; a value here is not screened and only returns a note. Use annual_revenue_aed or prior_exit_value_aed.
`annual_revenue_aed`	No	Annual revenue of the founder's UAE SME. ICP's entrepreneur route needs at least AED 1,000,000, plus approval of the venture by an accredited incubator or authority.
`monthly_salary_aed`	No	Monthly salary for skilled-professional screening. AED 30,000 is the published threshold; qualification, employment and evidence requirements must also be met.
`prior_exit_value_aed`	No	Total sale value of ventures the founder previously built and sold. ICP's alternative entrepreneur test needs at least AED 7,000,000. Dubai's GDRFA route uses a Dubai Future Foundation nomination with different criteria.
`real_estate_value_aed`	No	UAE property value for the investor category. Must be at least AED 2,000,000; approved-bank mortgages and approved-developer off-plan property can count.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.4.1Oct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / annual_revenue_aed

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Annual revenue of the founder's UAE SME. ICP's\nentrepreneur route needs at least AED 1,000,000, plus approval\nof the venture by an accredited incubator or authority."
+}

changedInput schema / properties / monthly_salary_aed / description

Previous value: -"Basic monthly salary for the specialized talent\ncategory. Must be at least AED 30,000 (verified over the prior\n24 months as of early 2026)."New value: +"Monthly salary for skilled-professional screening.\nAED 30,000 is the published threshold; qualification, employment\nand evidence requirements must also be met."

addedInput schema / properties / prior_exit_value_aed

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Total sale value of ventures the founder\npreviously built and sold. ICP's alternative entrepreneur test\nneeds at least AED 7,000,000. Dubai's GDRFA route uses a Dubai\nFuture Foundation nomination with different criteria."
+}

changedInput schema / properties / project_value_aed / description

Previous value: -"Business project value for the entrepreneur\ncategory. Must be at least AED 500,000 in technical / future\nfields with Ministry of Economy or accredited incubator approval."New value: +"Deprecated. ICP dropped the AED 500,000\nproject-valuation test; a value here is not screened and only\nreturns a note. Use annual_revenue_aed or prior_exit_value_aed."

changedInput schema / properties / real_estate_value_aed / description

Previous value: -"UAE property value for the investor category.\nMust be at least AED 2,000,000 in approved areas."New value: +"UAE property value for the investor category.\nMust be at least AED 2,000,000; approved-bank mortgages and\napproved-developer off-plan property can count."

First observedv0.4.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful caveat that results are indicative thresholds, not eligibility determinations. It does not explain how partial inputs are handled or that the deprecated parameter merely returns a note — that detail lives only in the schema.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and a scope limitation appended. No filler, no restatement of the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameter descriptions are rich, so much of the burden is carried elsewhere. Still, the description never names the routes being screened (investor, entrepreneur, skilled professional) or indicates that providing any subset of inputs returns per-route results, leaving the agent to infer structure from parameters alone.

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%, and each parameter carries a detailed AED threshold plus ICP-route context, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description itself contributes nothing about the five financial inputs, which is acceptable at baseline but no better.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'screen financial thresholds for Golden Visa routes', which tells an agent exactly what computation happens. The 'this is not final eligibility' clause sharpens scope. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as visa_recommend, visa_details, or list_visa_types.

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 'not final eligibility' disclaimer implies this is an early-stage screen rather than an authoritative answer, which is a partial when-not signal. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over visa_recommend or visa_details, nor on whether parameters can be combined.

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

Deploy Server