Skip to main content
Glama

DMD Costs legal costs tools

Judicial review time limit calculator (CPR 54.5; Aarhus caps)

calculate_judicial_review_time_limits
Read-onlyIdempotent

Works out the time limits for a claim for judicial review in England and Wales: promptly and in any event within 3 months of the grounds arising (CPR 54.5(1)), 6 weeks for decisions under the planning Acts (54.5(5)), 30 days beginning with the day of knowledge in procurement (54.5(6); Procurement Act 2023 s.106), with the pre-action protocol letter and reply, service of the claim form (54.7), the acknowledgment of service (54.8), the reply (54.8A), renewal after refusal on the papers (54.12), detailed grounds (54.14), the fees and the Aarhus Convention costs caps (CPR 46.24 to 46.28). Time cannot be extended by agreement. It never advises whether to claim.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "grounds": "<grounds>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_judicial_review_time_limits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesThe kind of claim: "general" (Most claims: any other decision, action or failure to act), "planning" (A decision of the Secretary of State or a local planning authority under the planning Acts), "procurement" (A procurement decision (Procurement Act 2023, or the Public Contracts Regulations 2015)).
aarhusNoThe claim form says it is an Aarhus Convention claim (costs caps, CPR 46.24 to 46.28).
issuedNoOptional: the day the claim form (N461) was issued.
servedNoOptional: the day the step to serve the claim form on the defendant was taken.
groundsYesThe day time runs from: "general", the day the grounds first arose; "planning", the date of the decision; "procurement", the day the claimant first knew or ought to have known of the grounds.
claimantNoWho the claimant is, for the Aarhus cap: "individual" (an individual), "other" (a company or other body).
aosServedNoOptional: the day the acknowledgment of service was served on the claimant.
letterSentNoOptional: the day the pre-action letter before claim was sent.
refusalServedNoOptional: the day the order refusing permission on the papers was served.
permissionServedNoOptional: the day the order giving permission was served.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / aosServed / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the day the acknowledgment of service was served on the claimant (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Optional: the day the acknowledgment of service was served on the claimant."
    • changedInput schema / properties / grounds / description
      Previous value: -"The day time runs from: \"general\", the day the grounds first arose; \"planning\", the date of the decision; \"procurement\", the day the claimant first knew or ought to have known of the grounds (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"The day time runs from: \"general\", the day the grounds first arose; \"planning\", the date of the decision; \"procurement\", the day the claimant first knew or ought to have known of the grounds."
    • changedInput schema / properties / issued / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the day the claim form (N461) was issued (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Optional: the day the claim form (N461) was issued."
    • changedInput schema / properties / letterSent / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the day the pre-action letter before claim was sent (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Optional: the day the pre-action letter before claim was sent."
    • changedInput schema / properties / permissionServed / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the day the order giving permission was served (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Optional: the day the order giving permission was served."
    • changedInput schema / properties / refusalServed / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the day the order refusing permission on the papers was served (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Optional: the day the order refusing permission on the papers was served."
    • changedInput schema / properties / served / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the day the step to serve the claim form on the defendant was taken (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Optional: the day the step to serve the claim form on the defendant was taken."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent calculation. The description adds substantial domain behavior: it lists the CPR 54.5, 54.7, 54.8, 54.12, and 54.14 steps covered, the Aarhus costs caps, the fact that time cannot be extended by agreement, and the explicit limitation that it never advises whether to claim.

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 in the first clause, and the long enumeration of statutory rules is relevant to what the tool calculates. It is dense but largely waste-free; the only weakness is that the statutory citations are packed into one very long sentence rather than being more cleanly separated.

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 10-parameter legal calculator with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the claim types, the procedural steps calculated, the Aarhus caps, and key limitations. It could more explicitly say what the return format looks like, but the enumerated steps make the calculated outputs reasonably clear.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already define kind, grounds, aarhus, and the optional procedural dates. The description explains the legal context around those inputs but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it works out time limits for a claim for judicial review in England and Wales. That subject-matter specificity distinguishes it from more general deadline calculators in the sibling list, such as calculate_cpr_deadline or calculate_limitation_period.

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 scope is clear enough to imply usage: it applies to judicial review claims, with separate general, planning, and procurement limits. However, it never names alternative tools or explicitly says when to use this tool instead of calculate_cpr_deadline or calculate_pre_action_protocol_deadlines, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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