Skip to main content
Glama

Deadline under a district court's local rules

federal_local_deadline
Read-only

Compute a deadline a federal district court's own local rules set, for the districts whose local rules this site applies: a motion, an opposition or a reply counted back from the hearing date, and the court's other periods the rules fix. Give the rule as the court's own citation or a row id; rule "list" returns the district's rows and the date each counts from. Counts under FRCP 6(a) and the court's computation rule, applies the days the court's posted schedule closes it and the court's own mail rule, and returns the due date under the prevailing reading with the earliest and latest dates where the readings differ, the federal date a local rule replaces, the time of day where the rule sets one, the court's notes, the rule text and the countersign status. A district this site does not cover returns the districts it does.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ruleYesRequired. The row to compute: a row id from the list, the court's own citation as its local rules print it (for example "CivLR 7.1.e.1"), matched without regard to case, or "list" for every row this site computes for the district. A citation that names more than one row returns those rows and computes nothing; an unknown one returns the district's citations.
districtYesRequired. The CM/ECF id of the district court, such as "casd". Only districts whose local rules this site applies are accepted; any other id returns the list of those that are.
scheduleNoOptional. true returns every paper of the briefing schedule the row belongs to, for the one hearing date in trigger_date, with the dates under FRCP 6(c) alone beside them.
trigger_dateNoRequired unless rule is "list". The date the row counts from, in the row's own words (the list gives them): for a motion, opposition or reply, the hearing date; for an earliest-hearing row, the date the papers will be filed.
service_methodNoHow the paper was served, under FRCP 5(b)(2), on a row whose date depends on it (the list says which). A local rule's own extra days for mail, or Rule 6(d)'s 3 days, are added only where that rule reaches the row and the method calls for it: 5b2C-mail = Mail (Rule 5(b)(2)(C)); 5b2D-clerk = Leaving it with the clerk (Rule 5(b)(2)(D)); 5b2F-consented-other = Other means you consented to in writing (Rule 5(b)(2)(F)); 5b2E-electronic = The court's electronic-filing system or other consented electronic means (Rule 5(b)(2)(E)): adds nothing; 5b2A-handing = Handing it to the person (Rule 5(b)(2)(A)): adds nothing; 5b2B-leaving = Leaving it at the office or home (Rule 5(b)(2)(B)): adds nothing.
second_trigger_dateNoOnly on a row that asks for a second date (the list says which): the other date of a row that takes the later of two periods, or the date a federal rule's own period counts from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses computation under FRCP 6(a), schedule closures, the court's mail rule, return of prevailing/earliest/latest dates, replaced federal dates, time-of-day details, notes, rule text, and countersign status. It also explains fallback behavior for uncovered districts and ambiguous or unknown rule citations.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the description is dense with relevant detail rather than filler. It is somewhat run-on and could be easier to scan, but every part contributes to understanding the tool's scope and behavior.

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?

Given the six parameters, high schema coverage, lack of an output schema, and complex legal computation, the description is complete. It explains inputs, computation behavior, return contents, and district-coverage fallback.

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 already carries the main parameter semantics. The description reinforces the rule input and "list" behavior, but adds little beyond what the input schema already documents.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: compute a deadline set by a federal district court's local rules, including motion/opposition/reply periods counted from a hearing date. It is clearly a local-rule deadline tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling federal_deadline or federal_count_days.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It explains how to identify the rule to compute, including the special "list" value and citation/row-id matching, and scopes itself to covered districts. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of federal_deadline or federal_count_days.

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