Skip to main content
Glama

transaction-coordinator

by io.github.GordonHal

recompute_deadlines

Re-run FRCP / state procedural deadline calculation for a matter.

Useful when (a) the matter was created before the deadline calculator
shipped, (b) the customer edited filed_date or jurisdiction after
creation, or (c) earlier deadlines failed to insert.

Idempotent — dedupes on lowercased title so re-running can't duplicate.

Args:
    matter_uuid: UUID of the matter to recompute.
    api_key:     Your PrimaCoda MCP API key (starts 'pck_').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyYes
matter_uuidYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is idempotent and dedupes on lowercased title, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not fully disclose whether existing deadlines are overwritten or what the return payload contains (though output schema exists). The idempotency mention adds significant value beyond the name.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, bullet-style use cases, an idempotency note, and explicit parameter explanations. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 for a two-parameter tool: what it does, when to use it, and a notable behavioral guarantee (idempotency). While it doesn't mention prerequisites or fine-grained side effects, the output schema existence reduces the need to document return values. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though a note about permissions could have pushed it to 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides zero description coverage, but the description compensates fully with a dedicated Args section explaining both parameters: matter_uuid identifies the matter, and api_key is identified as the PrimaCoda MCP API key with a format hint ('starts 'pck_''). This adds meaningful semantic context that the schema lacks.

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 tool's function: 'Re-run FRCP / state procedural deadline calculation for a matter.' It uses a specific verb (re-run) and resource (deadline calculation for a matter), and distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like list_my_deadlines and check_motion_status by focusing on recalculation rather than listing or status checking.

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 'Useful when' section provides explicit, concrete triggers for when to use this tool (matter created before calculator shipped, edited filed_date/jurisdiction, earlier failures). It does not mention alternatives or when NOT to use, but the clarity of the usage scenarios is strong, earning a 4 rather than 3.

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

All transaction-coordinator 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: deadline listing vs. recalculation, motion drafting vs. status polling, and product info vs. fit assessment. However, primacoda_info with topic 'comparison' and is_primacoda_right_for_me could both be used for fit/plan questions, and the mix of legal, real estate, and sales tools may cause occasional misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., calculate_savings, draft_motion_from_matter, list_my_deadlines). Two exceptions stand out: primacoda_info is a noun phrase without a verb, and is_primacoda_right_for_me is a question-style name, deviating from the established convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the count sits comfortably in the ideal range (3-15). Each tool serves a distinct function, and the number feels appropriate for a server that covers legal drafting, deadline management, contract extraction, and sales/product information.

Completeness3/5

The server covers core workflows: drafting/polling motions, listing/recomputing deadlines, extracting contract data, and handling leads/product info. However, there are notable gaps; despite the 'transaction-coordinator' name, there are no tools to list, create, or update transactions or matters directly, and lead management beyond recording is absent.

Resources