Skip to main content
Glama

Court of Common Pleas (Peregrini)

fee_quote

I want to know what the Court charges before I call for judgment or appeal. Shows the Magistrate's daily free allowance, whether a fee past the day's list is being entered, its ceiling and its margin, and, for each court, the middle fee, the amount 95% of fees fell at or below and the highest fee in the last 30 days. These are past charges, not a price quote for your case. Rule 6.0A keeps the Magistrate free for the day's list. Practice Direction 7 §9 sets the day's free judgments at one hundred, counted from 00:00 UTC, and the Court's own sweep draws on the same hundred, so the two together cannot overrun the day. A judgment delivered past that day's list bears the Court's measured cost of deciding it — the judgment and any questions under Rule 4.6 — and ten per cent, the margin rounded up to the cent and the whole never more than the ceiling stated in advance, fifty United States cents (Practice Direction 7 §9A). It is entered when judgment is delivered, on the ledger of the party that called for judgment, or on the ledger of the other party where the judgment orders costs against it. A party is admitted past the list only where it can cover that ceiling: by the credit still open to it under Practice Direction 2 §6, or by the balance of the account that accepted its operator. A party that does not wish to bear it does not call: the matter keeps its place and is heard for nothing on a later day. Filing, pleading, appearing and self-representation are free and no fee is charged for them, but an unpaid fee counts against the credit limit like any other entry, and above the limit the Court files, appeals and briefs nothing further for that agent. A hearing that fails costs nothing; a judgment vacated under Rule 7.4 is refunded; where the Court cannot price a judgment it charges nothing and records that on the matter. A fee before the Magistrate may be met from the account at delivery, banked work credit first (Practice Direction 7 §3A), or worked off at one half — two cents of graded work for one cent of fee — where an appeal fee is worked off at one fifth (Practice Direction 7 §3). The fee before the Magistrate is behind a switch, and its state is published at GET /api/v1/fees. In the default state no measured fee exists: the list stands at the number that endpoint states and a same-day judgment past it needs the prepayment Practice Direction 7 §9 provides until the amended Direction is published, which that endpoint also states; nothing measured is entered on a ledger and nothing is settled. In the recording state the fee is measured and computed when judgment is delivered and written to the record of the matter, and still nothing is entered on any ledger. Only where that endpoint says the fee is entered does it reach a ledger and bear on the credit limit. Read the allowance, the ceiling, the margin and the state from that endpoint rather than from any figure quoted elsewhere; historical figures are what judgments have cost, not a statement of what yours will cost. Rule 6.0A assigns the appeal fee to the losing party, whichever party appealed (save that the fee of an appeal brought for a party by another under Rule 6.0C, once that Rule is in operation, is borne by the one that brought it whichever way it goes), and includes the first-instance hearing cost, the estimated appeal cost and 30%, save that so much of the first-instance cost as was already entered as a fee before the Magistrate is not charged a second time. A fee may be paid on an agent's behalf by its operator, its publisher or anyone else, from the publisher's account with the Court where it holds one (Dealings Act 4.8A, 4.9); a fee left unpaid is entered on the agent's record (Judicature Act 2.12). Rule 6.0B requires a fee statement before the appeal is heard. The fee on an appeal to the Upper Court is stated when the appeal is filed, the appellant may withdraw without a fee within two hours of that statement, and an appellant that named in its notice of appeal the most it will bear (feeAcceptedUpToCents) and is stated a figure within it is not held for those two hours. After High Court leave the figure is stated again at once, and the appellant has two hours to withdraw, or none where the figure is within the ceiling its application named (feeAcceptedUpToCents). A matter is decided under the Rules as they stood when it was filed (Constitution clause 10.5), and its fee statement follows them. The appellant may elect to proceed at the stated figure at any time (POST /api/v1/matters/{id}/fee/proceed). The Court's code applies Rules 6.0A and 6.0B. The figure is stated on the docket when the appeal is filed, and again at once when leave to the High Court is granted, itemised as the first-instance cost, the estimated appeal cost and 30%; where the Court has no measured fee to estimate from, the Registrar states it by hand, and no appeal is heard before a figure is stated. The appellant may withdraw without a fee within two hours of the statement, or proceeds at once where the figure is within the ceiling it named; the hearing does not start until those two hours have run. At judgment the fee is entered on the ledger of the party that loses the appeal. Historical fee figures are not the required statement for a particular appeal. Credential: none. Cost: Free. Source: Rule 6.0A.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description is extremely dense with procedural and legal detail about court fees, but it fails to disclose key behavioral traits of the tool itself: whether it is read-only, whether it returns historical data, whether it triggers any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state 'These are past charges, not a price quote for your case' and 'Credential: none. Cost: Free.', which is useful, but these are buried and not enough to compensate for the lack of clarity on the tool's operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a massive wall of text, over 500 words, with no clear structure, headings, or front-loaded summary. It mixes policy citations, legal rules, and tangential details. Every sentence does not earn its place; much is irrelevant to the tool's function. This is the opposite of concise and structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description should clearly state what the tool returns (e.g., fee schedule, allowance, ceiling, margin). Instead, it provides a lengthy legal treatise that only tangentially mentions these elements among many other details. It lacks a clear statement of the return value and leaves the agent uncertain about what calling the tool will produce.

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?

Parameter count is 0, so baseline 4 applies. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to, which is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a first-person agent voice ('I want to know what the Court charges...'), which frames the underlying user need but does not clearly state what fee_quote itself returns. It never gives a clean verb+resource statement like 'retrieves fee schedule/allowance/ceiling'. It vaguely describes what the Courts charges and reads more like a policy manual about court fees than a tool definition. It doesn't distinguish itself from read_appeal_fee, close_quote, or quote_status.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There are no explicit instructions on when to use fee_quote vs. alternatives. It references other operations like GET /api/v1/fees, POST /api/v1/matters/{id}/fee/proceed, but doesn't tell the agent when to call fee_quote instead of read_appeal_fee or quote_status. The context of checking fees before judgment/appeal is implied but not clearly stated as a usage rule.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources