Skip to main content
Glama

DMD Costs legal costs tools

Enforcement options calculator (writ, warrant, charging order, TPDO, attachment of earnings)

check_enforcement_options
Read-onlyIdempotent

Sets out the main ways to enforce a money judgment, costs order or costs certificate in England and Wales side by side: warrant of control, transfer up and writ of control, attachment of earnings, charging order, order for sale, third party debt order and order to obtain information. For each it says whether the rules allow it now (the £600 and £5,000 limits in the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 art 8, Consumer Credit Act debts, missed instalments, AEA 1971 s.3(3), permission after six years under CPR 83.2), the court, the form, the court fee, the PD 45 Table 7 fixed costs, enforcement agents' and High Court enforcement officers' fees under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 as amended from 1 May 2026, and the effect on judgment interest, which it works out where it can. It never says which option to use.

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": {
      "what": "<what>",
      "court": "<court>",
      "sum": "<sum>",
      "orderDate": "<orderDate>"
    },
    "name": "check_enforcement_options"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccaNoThe claim was to recover money due under a Consumer Credit Act 1974 regulated agreement (County Court only for goods; no judgment interest).
lpaNoThe debt is a qualifying debt under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (County Court judgment interest under £5,000).
sumYesThe sum still unpaid under the judgment, order or certificate, without judgment interest, in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
whatYesWhat is being enforced: "judgment" (a money judgment), "costs" (a costs order or costs certificate).
courtYesThe court that made the judgment or order: "county" (the County Court), "high" (the High Court).
payByNo"judgment" only: the date for payment the judgment gives.
debtorNoWho owes it: "individual" (an individual), "company" (a company or other body).
payWhenNo"judgment" only: when it must be paid: "14-days" (within 14 days, CPR 40.11 (the default)), "immediately" (forthwith, e.g. a default judgment naming no date), "date" (by the date in payBy).
orderDateYesThe date of the judgment, or of the costs order (interest on costs runs from it).
before2026NoEnforcement action under the writ or warrant was taken before 1 May 2026, so the earlier fee scale and 7-day notice apply (S.I. 2026/366 reg 1(3)).
noticeDateNoOptional: the day a notice of enforcement was given, for the earliest day to take control.
creditorVatNoThe creditor is registered for VAT (then no VAT equivalent is added to agents' fees); leave out if not known.
instalmentsNoAny order for payment by instalments: "none" (no instalment order (the default)), "arrears" (instalments ordered and one has been missed), "up-to-date" (instalments ordered and paid up to date).
judgmentSumNoOptional: the sum the judgment or certificate ordered, where more than is now unpaid (the County Court £5,000 interest test turns on it), in pounds (e.g. "12500.50").
representedNoA solicitor or other legal representative acts for the creditor, for the PD 45 Table 7 fixed costs; leave out if not known.
thirdPartiesNoBanks or other third parties to name in a third party debt order, as a whole number (default "1"); each is a separate fee.
certificateDateNo"costs" only: the date of the default, interim or final costs certificate; leave out where the order stated the sum.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / certificateDate / description
      Previous value: -"\"costs\" only: the date of the default, interim or final costs certificate; leave out where the order stated the sum (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"\"costs\" only: the date of the default, interim or final costs certificate; leave out where the order stated the sum."
    • changedInput schema / properties / judgmentSum / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the sum the judgment or certificate ordered, where more than is now unpaid (the County Court £5,000 interest test turns on it), in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"Optional: the sum the judgment or certificate ordered, where more than is now unpaid (the County Court £5,000 interest test turns on it), in pounds (e.g. \"12500.50\")."
    • changedInput schema / properties / noticeDate / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the day a notice of enforcement was given, for the earliest day to take control (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"Optional: the day a notice of enforcement was given, for the earliest day to take control."
    • changedInput schema / properties / orderDate / description
      Previous value: -"The date of the judgment, or of the costs order (interest on costs runs from it) (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"The date of the judgment, or of the costs order (interest on costs runs from it)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / payBy / description
      Previous value: -"\"judgment\" only: the date for payment the judgment gives (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"\"judgment\" only: the date for payment the judgment gives."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sum / description
      Previous value: -"The sum still unpaid under the judgment, order or certificate, without judgment interest, in pounds, e.g. \"12500\" or \"12,500.50\"."New value: +"The sum still unpaid under the judgment, order or certificate, without judgment interest, 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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds substantive context: exactly which rules and limits drive the eligibility answers, that fees/interest are computed where possible, and the explicit scope limit that it gives no recommendation. It stops short of describing what the response contains or how results are laid out.

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 long sentences, but front-loaded with the enumeration of options before the qualifying detail, so the key purpose lands first. Dense statutory citation (SI numbers, article/section references) is needed for the tool's precision but makes the second sentence heavy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 17-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description explains the domain and the inputs' legal relevance well, but says nothing about what the agent receives back (a comparison table? per-option eligibility flags and fee figures?). That gap matters because the return shape is the tool's whole value.

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 the schema already documents all 17 parameters, including the enums and the reason each matters (e.g. the CCA and Late Payment flags, before2026 fee scale). The description adds the legal rationale tying inputs to outputs (the £600/£5,000 limits, the six-year permission point) but does not map or clarify individual parameters 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 ('sets out ... side by side') plus the exact resource: the enforcement methods for a money judgment, costs order or costs certificate in England and Wales, enumerated by name. No sibling tool covers enforcement options, and the enumeration makes the scope unambiguous at a glance.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain (compare enforcement routes for an unpaid sum) and the closing sentence correctly bounds it ('It never says which option to use'), which prevents misuse as an advisor. But it names no alternatives among siblings (e.g. calculate_judgment_interest, calculate_fixed_costs) nor states prerequisites, so the when-to-call is inferred rather than given.

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