Skip to main content
Glama

DMD Costs legal costs tools

Employment tribunal costs calculator (ET Rules 2024, rules 72 to 82)

calculate_employment_tribunal_costs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Works out employment tribunal costs figures in England, Wales and Scotland under the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024: preparation time at the rule 77 hourly rate for the year the time was spent (£44 from 6 April 2024, up £1 each 6 April), final hearing time left out; a costs order with the £20,000 limit on a specified sum (rule 76), lay representatives' rates, witness expenses and deposits; the choice between a costs order and preparation time (rule 73(3)); wasted costs against a representative (rules 78 to 80); the 28-day deadline to apply (rules 75 and 5); and litigant in person costs in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (rule 34D, with the two-thirds cap). It applies the rates and caps to your figures and never estimates what a tribunal would allow. DMD Costs does not act in employment tribunals.

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": {
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_employment_tribunal_costs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYesThe tribunal and the kind of order: "et" (employment tribunal: costs or preparation time), "wasted" (wasted costs), "eat" (Employment Appeal Tribunal: litigant in person costs).
rowsNo"et" with order "pto" or "compare": the preparation time, one entry per year it was spent in.
sealNo"eat": the seal date of that order, if different.
sentNoFor the deadline: the date the final judgment (EAT: the final order) was sent to the parties.
orderNo"et": what is claimed: "pto" (a preparation time order: not represented by a legal representative), "costs" (a costs order: represented by a legal or lay representative), "compare" (both: represented for part of the case and not for the rest).
routeNo"et" with order "costs" or "compare": how the amount is decided: "specified" (a specified sum decided by the Tribunal, up to £20,000), "assessment" (detailed assessment, no limit), "agreed" (a sum agreed with the paying party, no limit).
nationNoWith sent: where the case is proceeding: "ew" (England and Wales), "scotland".
wastedNo"wasted": the costs wasted (your figure), in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
depositNoA deposit paid over to you by the paying party (r.40(8)), in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
eatDisbNo"eat": disbursements (outside the two-thirds cap), in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
eatLossNo"eat": financial loss you can prove for the time spent, in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
eatRowsNo"eat": your own time, one entry per year it was spent in.
layRateNoThe lay representative's hourly rate charged, in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
witnessNoWitness expenses for attending a hearing, in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
eatLegalNo"eat": paid for legal services on the proceedings, in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
eatOtherNo"eat": other expenses, and the cost of expert help with the costs claim, in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
employeeNo"wasted": the representative is the party's own employee (r.78(3)).
layHoursNoA lay representative's hours charged, in hours (e.g. "12.5" or "3:30").
forProfitNo"wasted": the representative acted in pursuit of profit (r.78(4)).
legalCostsNoThe legal representative's costs claimed (your figure), in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
layWorkYearNoWith a lay representative: the year the work was done (optional, for the other reading of r.76(2)), in the same form.
eatOrderYearNo"eat": the year of the costs order (optional, for the other reading of the rate). The year beginning 6 April, as the calendar year it starts in, e.g. "2025" for 6 April 2025 to 5 April 2026.
layOrderYearNoWith a lay representative: the year the costs order is, or will be, made. The year beginning 6 April, as the calendar year it starts in, e.g. "2025" for 6 April 2025 to 5 April 2026.
eatComparatorNo"eat": your own figure for what a legal representative would have been allowed, to check the two-thirds cap, in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
eatSameDayWitnessNo"eat": a witness allowance is claimed for a day also claimed as attendance time.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed18 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / deposit / description
      Previous value: -"A deposit paid over to you by the paying party (r.40(8)), in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"A deposit paid over to you by the paying party (r.40(8)), in pounds (e.g. \"12500.50\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / eatComparator / description
      Previous value: -"\"eat\": your own figure for what a legal representative would have been allowed, to check the two-thirds cap, in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"\"eat\": your own figure for what a legal representative would have been allowed, to check the two-thirds cap, in pounds (e.g. \"12500.50\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / eatDisb / description
      Previous value: -"\"eat\": disbursements (outside the two-thirds cap), in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"\"eat\": disbursements (outside the two-thirds cap), in pounds (e.g. \"12500.50\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / eatLegal / description
      Previous value: -"\"eat\": paid for legal services on the proceedings, in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"\"eat\": paid for legal services on the proceedings, in pounds (e.g. \"12500.50\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / eatLoss / description
      Previous value: -"\"eat\": financial loss you can prove for the time spent, in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"\"eat\": financial loss you can prove for the time spent, in pounds (e.g. \"12500.50\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / eatOther / description
      Previous value: -"\"eat\": other expenses, and the cost of expert help with the costs claim, in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"\"eat\": other expenses, and the cost of expert help with the costs claim, in pounds (e.g. \"12500.50\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / eatRows / items / properties / hours / description
      Previous value: -"The hours spent in that year, as a number such as \"12.5\" or hours and minutes such as \"3:30\"."New value: +"The hours spent in that year, in hours (e.g. \"12.5\" or \"3:30\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / layHours / description
      Previous value: -"A lay representative's hours charged, as a number such as \"12.5\" or hours and minutes such as \"3:30\"."New value: +"A lay representative's hours charged, in hours (e.g. \"12.5\" or \"3:30\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / layRate / description
      Previous value: -"The lay representative's hourly rate charged, in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"The lay representative's hourly rate charged, in pounds (e.g. \"12500.50\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / legalCosts / description
      Previous value: -"The legal representative's costs claimed (your figure), in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"The legal representative's costs claimed (your figure), in pounds (e.g. \"12500.50\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / nation / description
      Previous value: -"With sent: where the case is proceeding: \"ew\" (England and Wales), \"scotland\" (Scotland)."New value: +"With sent: where the case is proceeding: \"ew\" (England and Wales), \"scotland\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / assessed / description
      Previous value: -"The hours the Tribunal assessed for that period, if it has (r.77(1)), as a number such as \"12.5\" or hours and minutes such as \"3:30\"."New value: +"The hours the Tribunal assessed for that period, if it has (r.77(1)), in hours (e.g. \"12.5\" or \"3:30\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / hearing / description
      Previous value: -"Of those hours, the hours at the final hearing (left out, r.72), as a number such as \"12.5\" or hours and minutes such as \"3:30\"."New value: +"Of those hours, the hours at the final hearing (left out, r.72), in hours (e.g. \"12.5\" or \"3:30\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / rows / items / properties / hours / description
      Previous value: -"The hours spent in that year, as a number such as \"12.5\" or hours and minutes such as \"3:30\"."New value: +"The hours spent in that year, in hours (e.g. \"12.5\" or \"3:30\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / seal / description
      Previous value: -"\"eat\": the seal date of that order, if different (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"\"eat\": the seal date of that order, if different."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sent / description
      Previous value: -"For the deadline: the date the final judgment (EAT: the final order) was sent to the parties (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"For the deadline: the date the final judgment (EAT: the final order) was sent to the parties."
    • changedInput schema / properties / wasted / description
      Previous value: -"\"wasted\": the costs wasted (your figure), in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"\"wasted\": the costs wasted (your figure), in pounds (e.g. \"12500.50\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / witness / description
      Previous value: -"Witness expenses for attending a hearing, in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"Witness expenses for attending a hearing, in pounds (e.g. \"12500.50\")."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds important context: it applies rates and caps to user figures, never estimates what a tribunal would allow, and notes that DMD Costs does not act in employment tribunals. It does not describe output format or error behavior, but it adds meaningful behavioral framing beyond the annotations.

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 and coverage are front-loaded, and the dense legal enumeration is justified by the tool's breadth across 25 parameters and three modes. The long semicolon-separated sentence is hard to parse, but the description is not padded; most clauses correspond to distinct calculable features.

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 complex 25-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers the legal scope, rate/cap application, modes, and key limitations well. It still does not explain the response shape or how invalid parameter combinations are handled, leaving a modest gap for an agent invoking a multi-mode calculation tool.

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 real domain meaning by tying parameters to rules: rule 77 hourly rates and year-based rates, final hearing time left out, the £20,000 specified-sum limit, lay representative rates, witness expenses, deposits, the r.73(3) choice, wasted costs, the 28-day deadline, and the EAT two-thirds cap. It does not map every one of the 25 parameters, but it substantially enriches interpretation beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it works out employment tribunal costs figures under the ET Procedure Rules 2024 in England, Wales and Scotland. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling calculate_litigant_in_person_costs, even though it also covers EAT litigant-in-person costs.

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?

The description enumerates the legal scenarios and outputs covered, such as preparation time, costs orders, wasted costs, and EAT costs, which implies when the tool is relevant. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative sibling tools, so the agent must infer selection.

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