DMD Costs legal costs tools

Deemed service calculator (CPR 6.14, 6.26, 10.3, 15.4)

calculate_deemed_service

Read-onlyIdempotent

Works out when a claim form and particulars of claim are deemed served in England and Wales, and every date that follows: acknowledgment of service, the defence, agreed extensions and the earliest default judgment, with bank holidays and court closures. Also covers the Damages Claims Portal (PD 51ZB). Give the issue date, how and when the claim form was served, and how the particulars were served.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issue": "<issue>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_deemed_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`aos`	No	Whether the defendant acknowledged service: "yes", "no" or "" if not known.
`poc`	No	Whether the particulars of claim are in the claim form, served with it (default), or to follow.
`issue`	Yes	The date the claim form was issued.
`route`	No	"part7" for a claim served under Part 6 (default), "dcp" for the Damages Claims Portal.
`cfStep`	No	The date of the step taken to serve the claim form (posting, sending, delivering).
`cfTime`	No	The time of that step, where the method is timed (24-hour HH:MM). Leave out if not known.
`pocDate`	No	Where the particulars followed: the date of the step taken to serve them.
`pocTime`	No	Where the particulars followed: the time of that step (24-hour HH:MM). Leave out if not known.
`special`	No	Leave "" unless service was outside the jurisdiction, on the Crown, or by an alternative method ordered by the court.
`cfMethod`	No	How the claim form was served (default first-class-post).
`servedBy`	No	Who served the claim form (default claimant).
`extension`	No	Days of extension for the defence agreed under CPR 15.5 (up to 28), e.g. "28".
`pocMethod`	No	Where the particulars followed: how they were served.
`courtDeemed`	No	Where the court served the claim form: the deemed service date on its notice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / cfStep / description

Previous value: -"The date of the step taken to serve the claim form (posting, sending, delivering) (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"The date of the step taken to serve the claim form (posting, sending, delivering)."

changedInput schema / properties / courtDeemed / description

Previous value: -"Where the court served the claim form: the deemed service date on its notice (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Where the court served the claim form: the deemed service date on its notice."

changedInput schema / properties / issue / description

Previous value: -"The date the claim form was issued (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"The date the claim form was issued."

changedInput schema / properties / pocDate / description

Previous value: -"Where the particulars followed: the date of the step taken to serve them (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Where the particulars followed: the date of the step taken to serve them."

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context beyond them: bank holidays and court closures are accounted for, and CPR 6.14/6.26/10.3/15.4 plus PD 51ZB are the governing rules, which tells the agent the output is jurisdiction- and calendar-aware.

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?

Two content sentences plus one imperative input instruction, with the core purpose front-loaded before the output list and the coverage caveats. The list of downstream dates is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it will receive.

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 14-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates by naming the returned dates (AOS, defence, agreed extensions, earliest default judgment) and the rules applied. It does not describe the response shape or handling of unknown inputs (e.g. empty aos), leaving a minor gap.

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 every one of the 14 parameters is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the three input families that matter (issue date, claim form service step/method, particulars service step/method) but adds no syntax or default details beyond the schema.

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: it computes when a claim form and particulars are deemed served in England and Wales, plus every downstream date (AOS, defence, extensions, earliest default judgment). This clearly separates it from generic siblings like calculate_cpr_deadline and calculate_part_35_and_part_18_dates.

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?

It gives concrete invocation context: provide the issue date, how and when the claim form was served, and how the particulars were served, and it names the PD 51ZB Damages Claims Portal case as covered. It does not explicitly say when to use a different sibling instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All DMD Costs legal costs tools 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.