Skip to main content
Glama

DMD Costs legal costs tools

Security for costs checker (CPR 25.26 to 25.29)

check_security_for_costs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks which conditions for security for costs in the civil courts of England and Wales (CPR Part 25 Section VI, as rewritten from 6 April 2025) appear to be met on your answers, with the rule's words: a claimant resident out of the jurisdiction (with the enforcement position by country, including the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention), a company with reason to believe it will be unable to pay (and after-the-event insurance), a change of address to evade, no or an incorrect address, a nominal claimant, steps taken with assets, funders and assignors (r.25.28), appeals (r.25.29), counterclaims, Solicitors Act and detailed assessments, arbitration challenges (s.70(6)) and foreign judgment registrations (CPR 74.5); then the discretion factors and the procedure. It never decides the application and never suggests an amount of security: that is for the court.

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": {
      "proceeding": "<proceeding>"
    },
    "name": "check_security_for_costs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aosNoWhether the party applying has filed an acknowledgment of service or a defence (against a counterclaim, a defence to it).
ateNoAfter-the-event insurance: "none", "unprotected" (a policy the insurer could avoid), "protected" (anti-avoidance terms or a deed of indemnity).
kindNoThe party security is sought from: "individual" (an individual), "company" (a company or other body).
delayNoThe application is late.
evadeNoWhere moved: whether there is evidence the move was to evade the consequences of the litigation.
movedNoWhether the address has changed since the claim was commenced.
whereNoWhere they live, or for a company where it is managed and controlled: "england-wales" (England and Wales), "scotland", "northern-ireland", "eu" (An EU member state other than Denmark), "denmark", "switzerland", "ukraine", "uruguay", "albania", "montenegro", "andorra", "elsewhere" (Anywhere else (for example the USA, the BVI, China, Kenya, the UAE)).
assetsNoWhether they have taken steps with their assets that would make a costs order hard to enforce.
issuedNoThe date the claim was issued, for the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention (Art 16).
unableNoA company: whether there is reason to believe it will be unable to pay the costs if ordered to.
addressNoThe address in the claim form: "correct" (given, and correct), "none" (not given), "incorrect".
limitedNoThat company is a limited company (for r.25.29(2) on an appeal).
capacityNoWhose benefit the claim is for: "own" (their own), "nominee" (someone else's: a nominee with no real interest), "representative" (an estate or trust), "part19" (a group: a Part 19 representative claimant).
stiflingNoThe claimant says an order would stifle the claim.
vitalityNoAgainst a counterclaim: whether it has a life of its own, beyond defending the claim.
applicantNo"claim" or "solicitors-act": who is applying for security: "defendant" (the defendant), "counterclaim" (the claimant, as defendant to a counterclaim), "claimant" (the claimant, against a defendant who only defends).
arbTargetNo"arbitration": whether security is sought from the party challenging or appealing the award.
assetsHereNoThe claimant has assets or a fund in England and Wales.
permissionNo"appeal": permission to appeal: "granted", "adjourned" (adjourned to a hearing, appeal to follow).
proceedingYesWhat the security is for: "claim" (a claim, or a counterclaim, at first instance), "appeal" (an appeal), "assessment" (a detailed assessment between the parties), "solicitors-act" (a Solicitors Act assessment of a solicitor's bill), "arbitration" (a challenge or appeal under the Arbitration Act 1996, ss.67 to 69), "foreign-judgment" (registering a foreign judgment, or setting the registration aside).
thirdPartyNoAnyone else behind the claim: "none" (no one), "funder" (a funder paying for a share of any recovery), "assignor" (someone who assigned the claim to the claimant), "backer" (someone paying towards the costs without a share).
appealTargetNo"appeal": who security is sought from: "appellant" (the appellant), "cross-appellant" (a respondent who also appeals), "respondent" (a respondent who does not appeal).
counterclaimNoThe defendant has a counterclaim on the same issues.
judgment1982No"foreign-judgment": whether the registration is under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
assignPurposeNoWhere "assignor": whether the claim was assigned to avoid a costs order against them.
nomineeUnableNoWhere "nominee": whether there is reason to believe the nominee will be unable to pay.
defendantCausedNoThe claimant says the defendant caused its lack of means.
costsOrderAgainstNoWhere someone else is behind the claim: whether a costs order could be made against them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed16 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Previous value: -"The address in the claim form: \"correct\" (given, and correct), \"none\" (not given), \"incorrect\" (incorrect)."New value: +"The address in the claim form: \"correct\" (given, and correct), \"none\" (not given), \"incorrect\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / aos / description
      Previous value: -"Whether the party applying has filed an acknowledgment of service or a defence (against a counterclaim, a defence to it): \"yes\" or \"no\"."New value: +"Whether the party applying has filed an acknowledgment of service or a defence (against a counterclaim, a defence to it)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / arbTarget / description
      Previous value: -"\"arbitration\": whether security is sought from the party challenging or appealing the award: \"yes\" or \"no\"."New value: +"\"arbitration\": whether security is sought from the party challenging or appealing the award."
    • changedInput schema / properties / assets / description
      Previous value: -"Whether they have taken steps with their assets that would make a costs order hard to enforce: \"yes\", \"no\" or \"unsure\"."New value: +"Whether they have taken steps with their assets that would make a costs order hard to enforce."
    • changedInput schema / properties / assignPurpose / description
      Previous value: -"Where \"assignor\": whether the claim was assigned to avoid a costs order against them: \"yes\", \"no\" or \"unsure\"."New value: +"Where \"assignor\": whether the claim was assigned to avoid a costs order against them."
    • changedInput schema / properties / ate / description
      Previous value: -"After-the-event insurance: \"none\" (none), \"unprotected\" (a policy the insurer could avoid), \"protected\" (anti-avoidance terms or a deed of indemnity)."New value: +"After-the-event insurance: \"none\", \"unprotected\" (a policy the insurer could avoid), \"protected\" (anti-avoidance terms or a deed of indemnity)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / costsOrderAgainst / description
      Previous value: -"Where someone else is behind the claim: whether a costs order could be made against them: \"yes\", \"no\" or \"unsure\"."New value: +"Where someone else is behind the claim: whether a costs order could be made against them."
    • changedInput schema / properties / evade / description
      Previous value: -"Where moved: whether there is evidence the move was to evade the consequences of the litigation: \"yes\" or \"no\"."New value: +"Where moved: whether there is evidence the move was to evade the consequences of the litigation."
    • changedInput schema / properties / issued / description
      Previous value: -"The date the claim was issued, for the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention (Art 16) (YYYY-MM-DD)."New value: +"The date the claim was issued, for the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention (Art 16)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / judgment1982 / description
      Previous value: -"\"foreign-judgment\": whether the registration is under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982: \"yes\", \"no\" or \"unsure\"."New value: +"\"foreign-judgment\": whether the registration is under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982."
    • changedInput schema / properties / moved / description
      Previous value: -"Whether the address has changed since the claim was commenced: \"yes\", \"no\" or \"unsure\"."New value: +"Whether the address has changed since the claim was commenced."
    • changedInput schema / properties / nomineeUnable / description
      Previous value: -"Where \"nominee\": whether there is reason to believe the nominee will be unable to pay: \"yes\", \"no\" or \"unsure\"."New value: +"Where \"nominee\": whether there is reason to believe the nominee will be unable to pay."
    • changedInput schema / properties / permission / description
      Previous value: -"\"appeal\": permission to appeal: \"granted\" (granted), \"adjourned\" (adjourned to a hearing, appeal to follow)."New value: +"\"appeal\": permission to appeal: \"granted\", \"adjourned\" (adjourned to a hearing, appeal to follow)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / unable / description
      Previous value: -"A company: whether there is reason to believe it will be unable to pay the costs if ordered to: \"yes\", \"no\" or \"unsure\"."New value: +"A company: whether there is reason to believe it will be unable to pay the costs if ordered to."
    • changedInput schema / properties / vitality / description
      Previous value: -"Against a counterclaim: whether it has a life of its own, beyond defending the claim: \"yes\", \"no\" or \"unsure\"."New value: +"Against a counterclaim: whether it has a life of its own, beyond defending the claim."
    • changedInput schema / properties / where / description
      Previous value: -"Where they live, or for a company where it is managed and controlled: \"england-wales\" (England and Wales), \"scotland\" (Scotland), \"northern-ireland\" (Northern Ireland), \"eu\" (An EU member state other than Denmark), \"denmark\" (Denmark), \"switzerland\" (Switzerland), \"ukraine\" (Ukraine), \"uruguay\" (Uruguay), \"albania\" (Albania), \"montenegro\" (Montenegro), \"andorra\" (Andorra), \"elsewhere\" (Anywhere else (for example the USA, the BVI, China, Kenya, the UAE))."New value: +"Where they live, or for a company where it is managed and controlled: \"england-wales\" (England and Wales), \"scotland\", \"northern-ireland\", \"eu\" (An EU member state other than Denmark), \"denmark\", \"switzerland\", \"ukraine\", \"uruguay\", \"albania\", \"montenegro\", \"andorra\", \"elsewhere\" (Anywhere else (for example the USA, the BVI, China, Kenya, the UAE))."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral boundaries beyond them: it does not decide the application and does not quantify security, which is exactly the guardrail an agent needs to avoid over-claiming from the output. It also signals the output style ('with the rule's words'). It stops short of describing the shape of the result or how it handles partial inputs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose lands in the first clause, but the middle is a single run-on sentence with heavy parentheticals ('a company with reason to believe it will be unable to pay (and after-the-event insurance)', 'including the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention') that read as coverage bragging rather than selection help. The scope sentence at the end is the highest-value part and is buried.

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 28-parameter, 1-required tool with no output schema, the description should explain how to drive it — whether to answer every parameter or only 'proceeding' and the facts known. It hints at output content ('the discretion factors and the procedure') but never clarifies partial-answer behavior, which is the main uncertainty an agent faces here.

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% across all 28 parameters, with enum values individually documented, so the schema does all the work. The description adds no parameter-level guidance at all — not even that only 'proceeding' is required or which parameters become relevant for which proceeding type.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Checks which conditions for security for costs ... appear to be met'), scopes it to CPR Part 25 Section VI as rewritten 6 April 2025, and enumerates the grounds covered (r.25.28, r.25.29, arbitration s.70(6), CPR 74.5). Nothing in the sibling list (look_up_cpr_costs_rule, check_enforcement_options, explain_costs_order) could be confused with this evaluative checker.

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 rather than stated: 'on your answers' signals it evaluates supplied facts, and the closing sentence carves out scope ('never decides the application and never suggests an amount'). But it names no alternative tool and gives no condition for choosing this over look_up_cpr_costs_rule or explain_costs_order, leaving routing to inference.

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