Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DMD Costs legal costs tools

by io.github.Ments123
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Financial remedy timetable (FPR 2010 Part 9: Forms E, H and H1)

calculate_financial_remedy_timetable
Read-onlyIdempotent

Works out the financial remedy timetable in the family court in England and Wales (FPR 2010 Part 9; standard, fast-track and the Express pilot under PD 36ZH): the first appointment 12 to 16 weeks after issue, Form E 5 weeks before it, the documents 14 days before, the FDR and its offers, open proposals (FPR 9.27A, 9.28), Form H at every hearing and Form H1 before the final hearing (9.27), FM5, ES1 and ES2 and the bundle (PD 27A; Financial Remedies Guide 2026). Dates only: it never advises on the merits, the division or costs.

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": {
      "procedure": "<procedure>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_financial_remedy_timetable"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fdrNoOptional: the FDR appointment, once fixed.
filedNoThe day the application (Form A or A1) was filed.
noFdrNoNo FDR appointment will take place (FPR 9.27A(2)).
noFm5NoNo FM5: the MIAM requirement does not apply, or the domestic abuse exemption was claimed (PD 3A paras 10B and 13).
issuedNo"fast-track" and "express": the day it was issued, if not the day it was filed.
servedNo"fast-track": the day the application was served on the respondent.
procedureYesThe financial remedy procedure: "standard" (Standard procedure (FPR Part 9 Chapter 4): first appointment, FDR, final hearing), "fast-track" (Fast-track procedure (Chapter 5): periodical payments only, or varying them), "express" (Express pilot (PD 36ZH): divorce finances under £250,000 at a pilot court, filed 7 April 2025 to 2 April 2027).
finalHearingNoOptional: the first day of the final hearing, once fixed.
firstAppointmentNoOptional: the first appointment or first hearing, from the court's notice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / fdr / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the FDR appointment, once fixed (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Optional: the FDR appointment, once fixed."
    • changedInput schema / properties / filed / description
      Previous value: -"The day the application (Form A or A1) was filed (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"The day the application (Form A or A1) was filed."
    • changedInput schema / properties / finalHearing / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the first day of the final hearing, once fixed (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Optional: the first day of the final hearing, once fixed."
    • changedInput schema / properties / firstAppointment / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the first appointment or first hearing, from the court's notice (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Optional: the first appointment or first hearing, from the court's notice."
    • changedInput schema / properties / issued / description
      Previous value: -"\"fast-track\" and \"express\": the day it was issued, if not the day it was filed (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"\"fast-track\" and \"express\": the day it was issued, if not the day it was filed."
    • changedInput schema / properties / served / description
      Previous value: -"\"fast-track\": the day the application was served on the respondent (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"\"fast-track\": the day the application was served on the respondent."
  2. Added

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 and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds a genuine behavioral boundary — it returns computed dates and does not advise on merits, division or costs — plus the timelines it derives (first appointment 12–16 weeks after issue, Form E 5 weeks before, documents 14 days before). It says nothing about output shape or how partially-known dates are handled.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and jurisdiction first, then the enumerated outputs, then the scope disclaimer — no filler. It is dense with statutory citations and parentheticals to the point of being hard to parse on a single pass, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of indicating what comes back, and it does so by listing the specific dates produced. For a deterministic nine-parameter calculator whose schema is fully documented, the only gap is how it behaves with partial inputs (e.g. only 'filed' supplied) and in what form dates are returned.

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 nine parameters is already documented, including the procedure enum with its statutory basis. The description adds regulatory context (PD 36ZH, FPR 9.27A/9.28, PD 27A) but no syntax, format, or dependency guidance beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('works out') and resource ('the financial remedy timetable in the family court in England and Wales') and scopes it to three named procedures. It enumerates the artifacts computed (Form E, documents, FDR, offers, Form H/H1, FM5, ES1/ES2, bundle), which clearly separates it from generic deadline calculators like calculate_cpr_deadline or calculate_fast_track_timetable.

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 parenthetical procedure list tells the agent which fact pattern selects which mode, and the closing clause 'Dates only: it never advises on the merits, the division or costs' rules out an adjacent task class. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources