Dadras — Iranian law (دادرس)

Mehrieh at today's value (مهریه به نرخ روز)

calculate_mehrieh

Read-onlyIdempotent

Value a mehrieh (مهریه) at today's prices: a sum in rial indexed by the Central Bank's annual price index from the year of the marriage to the year of the claim (note to article 1082 of the Civil Code), or a number of gold coins at their latest recorded price. Use it when the question is what a mehrieh is worth now; for damages on an ordinary debt use calculate_late_payment, and for the coin price alone get_reference_rates. Returns the figure, its breakdown, the index or price used with its date, and the legal basis. Amounts in rial; dates in the Jalali calendar.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	«وجه رایج» — a sum of money — or «سکه». Coins are not indexed; they are valued at the day's price.
`coin_type`	No	sekee is سکهٔ تمام امامی and is what courts usually take; sekeb is سکهٔ تمام بهار آزادی.
`claim_year`	No	Jalali year of the claim; this year when they do not say. Where the mehrieh is paid out of a deceased husband's estate, the year of the death instead.
`coin_count`	No	How many full coins the عقدنامه names.
`marriage_year`	No	Jalali year the marriage was contracted.
`already_paid_rial`	No	What has already been paid, in ریال.
`contract_amount_rial`	No	The sum written in the عقدنامه, in ریال.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The result, in Persian, as it should be quoted.
`links`	Yes	The dadrasai.com pages the result cites, in order.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "links": {
+      "description": "The dadrasai.com pages the result cites, in order.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "text": {
+      "description": "The result, in Persian, as it should be quoted.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "text",
+    "links"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the valuation method (Central Bank annual index from marriage year to claim year, article 1082 note; coins at latest recorded price), the unit conventions, and the return contents including legal basis. It stops short of stating edge cases (e.g., what happens if index data for a year is missing), which keeps it below a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action and tightly packed: valuation method, routing to alternatives, return contents, and unit conventions in four sentences with no filler. It is dense and long, but every sentence carries distinct information, so it stays just short of a 5.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 7-parameter calculation tool with an output schema, the description covers the calculation basis, the alternatives, the return shape, and the unit/calendar conventions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return values are additionally explained despite the output schema.

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 description adds cross-parameter conventions the schema does not state globally: amounts are in rial and dates are Jalali, and that coins are not indexed but valued at the day's price. That clarifies which parameters apply per 'kind', adding genuine value above the per-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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Value a mehrieh at today's prices') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming calculate_late_payment and get_reference_rates. An agent can route between these three tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the question is what a mehrieh is worth now') plus two named alternatives with the conditions that select them ('for damages on an ordinary debt', 'for the coin price alone'). Nothing is left to inference.

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

All Dadras — Iranian law (دادرس) tools Inspect

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

Need Help?