Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by com.debitura

Preview Case (Pricing & Eligibility)

preview_case
Read-onlyIdempotent

Dry-run a collection case BEFORE creating it: returns eligibility, the assigned collection partner, pricing (success fee), and any contracts that would need signing. Nothing is persisted. ALWAYS call this before create_case and show the user the pricing and requirements.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dueDateNoInvoice due date (ISO 8601) — used to compute debt age for pricing
claimLinesNoUnpaid invoices making up the claim. Use instead of amountToRecover and age buckets; Debitura derives the total and aging.
debtorTypeYesCompany (B2B) or Private individual (B2C)
currencyCodeYesISO 4217 currency code, e.g. "EUR", "USD", "DKK"
amountToRecoverNoTotal principal amount. Omit when sending claimLines
debtorStateAlpha2NoUS state code, e.g. "CA" — REQUIRED when the debtor is in the United States
debtorCountryAlpha2YesDebtor country, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, e.g. "DE", "US"
amountToRecoverOver6MonthsNoCumulative principal more than 180 days overdue
amountToRecoverOver12MonthsNoCumulative principal more than 365 days overdue
amountToRecoverOver24MonthsNoCumulative principal more than 730 days overdue

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by stating 'Nothing is persisted' and enumerates the return payload (eligibility, partner, pricing, contracts). This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the operation's safe, consultative nature.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Dry-run... BEFORE creating it'), followed by return values and a usage directive. No redundant wording.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the returned information and a clear call-to-action. It does not detail error cases or edge conditions, but given the annotations and schema richness, it is sufficiently complete for agent invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond noting that pricing and eligibility are computed from the input, but this is implied rather than explicit. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Dry-run a collection case'), the object (collection case), and the purpose (before creating it). It distinguishes from create_case by explicitly noting nothing is persisted, and lists the return values (eligibility, partner, pricing, contracts), making it distinct from get_case.

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?

The instruction 'ALWAYS call this before create_case' provides explicit usage context and an alternative (create_case). It also tells the agent to show the user the pricing and requirements, which is a clear workflow directive.

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

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource and action: case vs. tasks vs. files vs. messages vs. payments vs. account summary. The get_case_* family is broken out by specific sub-resource (activity, contract status, messages, payments, tasks), and preview_case is explicitly distinguished from create_case. list_tasks vs. get_case_tasks are scoped differently and the descriptions call out the difference.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, send_, upload_, preview_, ping. Even the standalone 'ping' is a common health-check convention and does not break the pattern. No camelCase or mixed verb styles appear.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, the server is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the breadth of the domain (case lifecycle, tasks, files, messages, payments, team management) justifies each tool. The count feels reasonable rather than bloated, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is well covered: preview, create, monitor (list/get, activity, payments, messages, contract status, files, tasks), communicate, and attach files. Missing operations like update_case, delete_case, or explicit task resolution are gaps, but they are often not needed in this domain since tasks auto-resolve and the partner drives legal processes. Overall, the surface is complete enough for typical agent workflows.

Resources