Skip to main content
Glama

California Court Deadlines

California deadline to respond to a complaint

california_response_to_complaint_deadline
Read-only

Compute when a response to a California complaint is due. Handles the four service methods separately, because each completes service on a different day, and applies the extensions a defendant may claim: the section 430.41 meet-and-confer declaration, the rule 3.110(d) stipulated 15 days, and a court-ordered extension. Unlawful detainer runs on section 1167 instead and is handled as its own case type.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
case_typeNoUnlawful detainer runs on a different statute and a much shorter clock.
service_dateYesThe date on the proof of service. What it means depends on the method: for personal service the date of delivery, for substituted service the date of the substituted delivery, for notice and acknowledgment the date the defendant signed.
service_methodYesHow the summons and complaint were served. personal = Personal delivery; substituted = Substituted service (left with someone, then mailed); mail-outside-state = First-class mail to a defendant outside California; notice-and-acknowledgment = Notice and acknowledgment of receipt
stipulated_15_daysNoTrue if the parties stipulated to the rule 3.110(d) 15-day extension.
court_extension_daysNoDays of any section 1054 court-ordered extension actually obtained.
meet_confer_declarationNoTrue if a section 430.41(a)(2) meet-and-confer declaration was filed, which takes an automatic 30 days.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that service methods are handled separately because they complete service on different days, and lists the specific extensions applied (section 430.41, rule 3.110(d), court-ordered). It also notes that unlawful detainer runs on section 1167. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then elaborates on service methods and extensions. Every sentence adds information; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: the core computation, the service methods, the extensions, and the special case of unlawful detainer. It does not mention how holidays or court days are handled, but given the sibling tools (e.g., california_add_court_days) and the readOnlyHint, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining why service_method matters (different completion days) and by referencing the extension parameters in context (meet-and-confer, stipulated 15 days, court-ordered), which reinforces their semantic meaning beyond the raw field 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: 'Compute when a response to a California complaint is due.' It explicitly names the four service methods and the extensions, and clarifies that unlawful detainer runs on a different statute, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that handle other deadline types (discovery, motions, etc.).

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 makes clear it is for complaint response deadlines and notes the special handling of unlawful detainer, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. However, the subject matter and the distinction of service methods provide strong contextual guidance, and the sibling list makes the intended scope obvious.

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