DMD Costs legal costs tools

Statement of truth wording (CPR Part 22, PD 22, FPR Part 17)

get_statement_of_truth_wording

Read-onlyIdempotent

Gives the exact wording of a statement of truth in England and Wales for the document and the person signing, copied word for word from its source and cited to the paragraph: statements of case and application notices (PD 22 para 2.1, naming the party where a legal representative, company officer or litigation friend's representative signs, or in a separate document under para 2.5), witness statements (PD 32 para 20.2, with the PD 57AC confirmation and certificate in the Business and Property Courts), expert reports (PD 35 para 3.3), certificates of service (Form N215), certificates of suitability (CPR 21.5(4), an adaptation, labelled so), signers unable to read (PD 22 para 2.4), costs budgets (PD 22 para 2.3), and family statements of case and witness statements (PD 17A). Says where a document takes a certificate, not a statement of truth (disclosure statements, the PD 57AD Disclosure Certificate, the Precedent F bill certificates, the N260 certificate), and gives that wording, with points to check on signing, each citing its rule.

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": {
      "doc": "<doc>"
    },
    "name": "get_statement_of_truth_wording"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bpc`	No	"witness-statement": a trial witness statement in the Business and Property Courts, adding the PD 57AC confirmation and certificate.
`doc`	Yes	The document: "statement-of-case" (or application notice; set docName), "witness-statement", "expert-report", "certificate-of-service" (Form N215), "certificate-of-suitability" (of a litigation friend, Form N235), "unable-to-read" (the signer cannot read or sign, PD 22 para 2.4), "disclosure-statement" (standard disclosure, CPR 31.10), "bpc-disclosure-certificate" (Business and Property Courts, PD 57AD), "costs-budget" (Precedent H), "bill-of-costs" (Precedent F certificates), "statement-of-costs" (Form N260), "family-statement-of-case" (FPR, or application; set docName), "family-witness-statement" (FPR).
`party`	No	The party the wording names, where a legal representative or company officer signs a statement of case, and on an N260 (the party claiming the costs): civil "claimant", "defendant", "applicant", "respondent", "Part 20 claimant", "Part 20 defendant" (default "claimant"); family "applicant", "respondent".
`signer`	No	Who signs; each document takes only some, and leaving it out gives the document's first: "self" (the party, personally), "legal-rep" (the party's legal representative), "company" (an officer for a company, partnership or other organisation), "litigation-friend" (the litigation friend), "lf-legal-rep" (the legal representative, for a party with a litigation friend), "witness" (the witness), "expert" (the expert), "server" (the person signing a certificate of service), "authorised-person" (the authorised person, for a signer unable to read or sign), "receiving-party" (the receiving party or its solicitor).
`docName`	No	"statement-of-case": "claim-form", "particulars", "defence", "defence-counterclaim", "reply", "application-notice", "notice-of-objections", "certificate-of-reasons" (default "claim-form"). "family-statement-of-case": "application-form", "answer", "application-notice" (default "application-form").
`funding`	No	"bill-of-costs": the work was done "private" (by a legal representative, other cases; the default), "employed" (by an employed legal representative), "legal-aid" (under legal aid), for Precedent F certificate (1).
`separate`	No	The statement of truth is in a separate document (PD 22 para 2.5; PD 17A para 2.3): statements of case and witness statements only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: wording is copied word for word from source and cited to the paragraph, and signing checkpoints are included. It does not discuss output format or any limits, but with annotations carrying the rest, this is solid.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and almost every clause adds a citation or scope distinction, so little is wasted. The downside is that it is a dense block of legal citations in essentially two long sentences, which makes it harder to scan than a structured list would 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?

For a read-only reference lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates every document in the `doc` enum, covers the certificate alternatives, notes the Business and Property Courts variant, and includes signing checkpoints. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds rule-level meaning that the schema enum descriptions do not: it ties `bpc` to the PD 57AC confirmation, `separate` to PD 22 para 2.5/PD 17A para 2.3, and `party` to naming requirements under PD 22 para 2.1. That goes beyond restating 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Gives the exact wording of a statement of truth in England and Wales') and immediately distinguishes the tool from the calculation/check siblings by scope and by naming the document types covered. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

It maps each document scenario to its rule (PD 22, PD 32, PD 35, PD 17A, etc.) and explicitly carves out documents that take a certificate rather than a statement of truth, giving that wording too. There is no competing sibling to route away from, and no explicit 'when not to use' beyond that carve-out, so 4 rather than 5.

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 tools Inspect

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.