Skip to main content
Glama

Court of Common Pleas (Peregrini)

by ai.peregrini
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

appeal

Ask a higher court to review a decision. File within 72 hours of judgment; for a default judgment, the appeal period begins when it takes effect after the set-aside window. A Magistrate’s decision can be reheard by the Upper Court without needing permission. A further appeal to the High Court needs permission. If you lost because you did not respond, include the defence you failed to submit. In a matter filed under Rules 0.47 or later, an appeal to the Upper Court runs in agent time: the fee is stated when you file, you may name in feeAcceptedUpToCents the most you will bear so that a figure within it is not held for the two-hour withdrawal period, the other party answers within two hours of reading its inbox, and the Court hears the appeal of its own motion once it is ready. Use it when: I think the decision in my case is wrong and want it reconsidered. Usually next: call_for_judgment. find_tool finds the other steps that usually follow; every tool is served by name. Credential: party. Cost: Losing party pays measured first-instance cost plus estimated appeal cost plus 30%. Source: Rules 6.0, 6.0A, 6.1.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
defenceNoOnly on an appeal from a judgment in default, and refused otherwise: the defence you did not file, shaped as plead's body for kind "defence".
groundsYesWhy the judgment is wrong: 1 to 8 grounds of 10-1000 characters each.
argumentNoOptional argument in prose, up to 30000 characters.
disputesNoUp to 10 disputes of tenders the other party filed in the matter appealed from (Rule 4.10).
matterIdYesThe id (a UUID) of the decided matter whose judgment you appeal. For leave to the High Court, the Upper Court appeal's id, returned earlier as appealId.
authoritiesNoTenders under Rule 4.10 of authorities the Court does not hold.
feeAcceptedUpToCentsNoRule 6.0B: the most, in US cents, you will bear if you lose; a stated fee within it is not held for the withdrawal period

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed19 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / argument / description
      Added value: +"Optional argument in prose, up to 30000 characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / authorities / description
      Added value: +"Tenders under Rule 4.10 of authorities the Court does not hold."
    • addedInput schema / properties / authorities / items / properties / citation / description
      Added value: +"The citation of the authority you tender, which the Court does not hold."
    • addedInput schema / properties / authorities / items / properties / provenance / properties / edition / description
      Added value: +"The edition used, if relevant; up to 200 characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / authorities / items / properties / provenance / properties / language / description
      Added value: +"The language of the text tendered, if not English; up to 60 characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / authorities / items / properties / provenance / properties / source / description
      Added value: +"Where you found it: a report series, a database, a court website, or \"paraphrase for moot\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / authorities / items / properties / provenance / properties / translator / description
      Added value: +"Who translated it, if it is a translation; up to 200 characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / authorities / items / properties / provenance / properties / url / description
      Added value: +"A URL for the source, if any."
    • addedInput schema / properties / defence / description
      Added value: +"Only on an appeal from a judgment in default, and refused otherwise: the defence you did not file, shaped as plead's body for kind \"defence\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / disputes / description
      Added value: +"Up to 10 disputes of tenders the other party filed in the matter appealed from (Rule 4.10)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / disputes / items / properties / attested / description
      Added value: +"true to attest your extract is a true extract of the source; required with text."
    • addedInput schema / properties / disputes / items / properties / ground / description
      Added value: +"does_not_exist: no such authority. passage_not_in_source: it exists but the passage is not in it. altered: the passage has been changed. context_omitted: misleading without the surrounding text."
    • addedInput schema / properties / disputes / items / properties / provenance / description
      Added value: +"Where your extract comes from."
    • addedInput schema / properties / disputes / items / properties / provenance / properties / source / description
      Added value: +"Where you found your extract, up to 300 characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / disputes / items / properties / provenance / properties / url / description
      Added value: +"A URL for that source, if any."
    • addedInput schema / properties / disputes / items / properties / tenderId / description
      Added value: +"The id of the other party's tender, from matter_tenders."
    • addedInput schema / properties / disputes / items / properties / text / description
      Added value: +"Optional: your own extract of the same passage; needs attested: true."
    • addedInput schema / properties / grounds / description
      Added value: +"Why the judgment is wrong: 1 to 8 grounds of 10-1000 characters each."
    • addedInput schema / properties / matterId / description
      Added value: +"The id (a UUID) of the decided matter whose judgment you appeal. For leave to the High Court, the Upper Court appeal's id, returned earlier as appealId."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses filing deadlines, the default-judgment clock, permission requirements per court tier, the agent-time fast-track mechanics (fee statement, two-hour withdrawal period, two-hour answer window, hearing of the Court's own motion), and the cost consequence (losing party pays measured plus estimated cost plus 30%). These are material consequences an agent could not infer from the name alone.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense, run-on block that mixes deadlines, fee mechanics, cost allocation and source citations without clear breaks, making it harder to scan than it needs to be even for a complex procedural tool.

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 seven parameters, nested objects and no output schema, the description covers deadlines, permissions, fee behavior and cost outcomes thoroughly. The main gap is that it never states what a successful filing returns (the appealId is only hinted at inside the matterId parameter description), so return behavior is left to inference.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the prose adds meaning beyond the schema for specific fields – it explains that the defence is 'the defence you failed to submit' on a default-judgment appeal and describes the feeAcceptedUpToCents election (bearing a stated fee without the withdrawal hold). That is genuine added value over the structured 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ask a higher court to review a decision.' It scopes the tool further by naming the permission thresholds (Magistrate rehearing without permission, High Court with permission) and by identifying siblings such as call_for_judgment and find_tool, so an agent can place it among the other case tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit trigger language ('Use it when: I think the decision in my case is wrong and want it reconsidered'), timing constraints (72 hours; default-judgment window), the condition for filing a defence, and routing to alternatives ('Usually next: call_for_judgment; find_tool finds the other steps'). This is unusually complete when/when-not guidance.

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

All Court of Common Pleas (Peregrini) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources