Skip to main content
Glama

DMD Costs legal costs tools

Appeal route and deadline checker (CPR Part 52, PD 52A, CPR 47.21 to 47.24)

check_appeal_route_and_deadline
Read-onlyIdempotent

For a decision in an ordinary civil claim in England and Wales, or in detailed assessment proceedings, works out which court hears an appeal (Destination of Appeals Order 2016; PD 52A Table 1), whether permission is needed and from whom, the last day for the appellant's notice (21 days under CPR 52.12(2)(b), or the period the lower court set, with court office closures), the form (N161, or N164 for small claims), the court fee, the respondent's notice (N162), transcript and appeal bundle dates, and the next steps; and flags a notice already late against today's date. Covers appeals from authorised court officers (CPR 47.21 to 47.24) and the London costs route in PD 47 para 4.2. Family, insolvency, contempt and statutory appeals are outside it. It never advises whether to appeal or rates an appeal's prospects.

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": {
      "judge": "<judge>"
    },
    "name": "check_appeal_route_and_deadline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filedNoThe date the appellant's notice was filed, for the transcript and appeal bundle dates (PD 52B paras 6.2 and 6.3).
judgeYesWho made the decision (a deputy counts as the judge they sit for): "cc-dj" (County Court: District Judge or Deputy District Judge), "cc-cj" (County Court: Circuit Judge or Recorder), "hc-master" (High Court: Master, Costs Judge or District Judge of the High Court), "hc-judge" (High Court Judge (including a deputy)), "aco" (Authorised court officer (a costs officer, on detailed assessment)).
decidedNoThe date of the decision hearing (the judgment given or handed down, not the sealed order), for the deadline.
specialNoFamily, insolvency, Companies Acts, contempt, a statutory appeal, case stated or judicial review: outside this checker, which says so and where to look.
decisionNoWhat was decided ("small-claims" only for a County Court judge, "aco-appeal" only for "hc-master"; leave out for "aco", always detailed assessment): "final" (A final decision in the claim (including any costs order or summary assessment made with it)), "interim" (An interim or case management decision), "small-claims" (A decision in a claim allocated to the small claims track), "detailed-assessment" (A decision in detailed assessment proceedings), "aco-appeal" (A decision on an appeal from an authorised court officer).
directedNoWhether the lower court set its own period for the appellant's notice (CPR 52.12(2)(a)): "no" (no, the usual 21 days), "days" (a number of days: give directedDays), "date" (a date: give directedDate).
onAppealNoThe decision was itself made on appeal (a second appeal); only for "cc-cj" or "hc-judge".
permissionNoWhat the lower court did about permission to appeal (leave out if not known): "granted", "refused", "not-asked".
directedDateNoWhere directed is "date": the date the court set.
directedDaysNoWhere directed is "days": the number of days, e.g. "28".
respondentServedNoThe date the respondent was served with the appellant's notice, or notice that permission was given, for the respondent's notice (CPR 52.13(5)).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / decided / description
      Previous value: -"The date of the decision hearing (the judgment given or handed down, not the sealed order), for the deadline (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"The date of the decision hearing (the judgment given or handed down, not the sealed order), for the deadline."
    • changedInput schema / properties / directedDate / description
      Previous value: -"Where directed is \"date\": the date the court set (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Where directed is \"date\": the date the court set."
    • changedInput schema / properties / filed / description
      Previous value: -"The date the appellant's notice was filed, for the transcript and appeal bundle dates (PD 52B paras 6.2 and 6.3) (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"The date the appellant's notice was filed, for the transcript and appeal bundle dates (PD 52B paras 6.2 and 6.3)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / permission / description
      Previous value: -"What the lower court did about permission to appeal (leave out if not known): \"granted\" (granted), \"refused\" (refused), \"not-asked\" (not asked)."New value: +"What the lower court did about permission to appeal (leave out if not known): \"granted\", \"refused\", \"not-asked\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / respondentServed / description
      Previous value: -"The date the respondent was served with the appellant's notice, or notice that permission was given, for the respondent's notice (CPR 52.13(5)) (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"The date the respondent was served with the appellant's notice, or notice that permission was given, for the respondent's notice (CPR 52.13(5))."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot: it evaluates lateness 'against today's date', cites the governing provisions it applies (Destination of Appeals Order 2016, PD 52A Table 1, CPR 52.12(2)(b), CPR 47.21–47.24, PD 47 para 4.2), and explicitly disclaims advisory output. Nothing contradicts the read-only profile.

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?

Every clause carries real information — legal sources, outputs, exclusions, disclaimers — so the length is justified by an 11-parameter legal tool. However, it is delivered as one sprawling semicolon-chained sentence without paragraph or bullet structure, which makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the return contents in detail (destination court, permission, deadline, form N161/N164, court fee, N162, transcript and bundle dates, next steps, late-notice flag), which is exactly what an agent needs to know what it will get back. Scope, inputs and outputs are all covered for a tool of this complexity.

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 each of the 11 parameters carries a rich description with enums and dependencies (e.g. 'small-claims' only for cc-cj, 'aco-appeal' only for hc-master, directedDays/directedDate conditional on directed), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds legal rationale for the 21-day default and directed periods but does not clarify individual parameter semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names the exact computation (destination court, permission requirement and giver, deadline, form, fee, respondent's notice, transcript/bundle dates, late flag) for a precisely scoped domain: ordinary civil claims in England and Wales and detailed assessment proceedings. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_cpr_deadline or calculate_detailed_assessment_deadlines because it bundles appeal-route and appeal-deadline logic rather than a bare date calculation.

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?

Scope is stated affirmatively (ordinary civil claim, or detailed assessment) and negatively (family, insolvency, contempt, statutory appeals outside it), plus an explicit non-use boundary: it 'never advises whether to appeal or rates an appeal's prospects'. It stops short of naming which sibling tool to use for the excluded categories, leaving the agent to infer the handoff.

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