Private Law Wiki

Assess a problem with a bank

assess_bank_case

Read-onlyIdempotent

The complaint desk's deterministic assessment for a frozen account, a closure notice, a document request, a stuck payment or a refused application: what to do now, the escalation ladder of the bank's jurisdiction (bank complaint, ombudsman or regulator, data access request) with each rung judged for this client — open now, after the bank replies, conditional or not open to them — and linked to its primary source, plus deadlines, cautions and the help that fits. Also returns the letters to send — the formal complaint that starts the bank's clock and the data access request, in English with bracketed placeholders the person fills in themselves — and the dates that follow if they go out today. Pass holder whenever it is known: an ombudsman's door depends on whose account it is. Information, not legal advice. Never submit a person's contact details; hand them the complaint URL instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`stage`	Yes
`today`	No	The client's current date (YYYY-MM-DD) for the calendar. Optional; defaults to the server's date.
`amount`	Yes
`holder`	No	Whose account it is. Optional; without it eligibility is stated, not decided.
`locale`	No
`problem`	Yes
`sanctions`	Yes	Russia or Belarus nexus of the client.
`jurisdiction`	Yes	Where the bank or the neobank's licence sits.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`letters`	Yes
`service`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes
`articles`	Yes
`calendar`	Yes
`cautions`	Yes
`headline`	Yes
`deadlines`	Yes
`escalation`	Yes
`firstSteps`	Yes
`complaintUrl`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / today

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The client's current date (YYYY-MM-DD) for the calendar. Optional; defaults to the server's date.",
+  "pattern": "^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / calendar

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "date": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "label": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "label",
+      "date"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / letters

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "body": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kind": {
+        "enum": [
+          "complaint",
+          "data_request"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "purpose": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "title": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "title",
+      "purpose",
+      "body"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "headline",
-  "verdict",
-  "firstSteps",
-  "escalation",
-  "deadlines",
-  "service",
-  "cautions",
-  "articles",
-  "complaintUrl"
-]New value: +[
+  "headline",
+  "verdict",
+  "firstSteps",
+  "escalation",
+  "deadlines",
+  "calendar",
+  "letters",
+  "service",
+  "cautions",
+  "articles",
+  "complaintUrl"
+]

Changed8 schema fields changedSep 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / holder

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whose account it is. Optional; without it eligibility is stated, not decided.",
+  "enum": [
+    "individual",
+    "small_business",
+    "company"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / escalation / items / properties / source
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / escalation / items / properties / status

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "open",
+    "later",
+    "conditional",
+    "closed"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / escalation / items / properties / statusNote
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / escalation / items / properties / who
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / escalation / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "when",
-  "how"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "when",
+  "how",
+  "who",
+  "status",
+  "statusNote"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / verdict
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "headline",
-  "firstSteps",
-  "escalation",
-  "deadlines",
-  "service",
-  "cautions",
-  "articles",
-  "complaintUrl"
-]New value: +[
+  "headline",
+  "verdict",
+  "firstSteps",
+  "escalation",
+  "deadlines",
+  "service",
+  "cautions",
+  "articles",
+  "complaintUrl"
+]

AddedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: deterministic logic, conditional eligibility for each escalation rung ('open now, after the bank replies, conditional or not open to them'), and the dependency of the ombudsman's door on `holder`. It also discloses the 'Information, not legal advice' boundary and the instruction to avoid submitting contact details, which is actionable agent behavior.

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 description is dense and long, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then progressively adds outputs, conditions, cautions, and agent instructions. Every clause adds information; however, the single massive paragraph is harder to parse than structured bullets, so it is not perfectly concise.

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 an 8-parameter, high-complexity tool with an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the problem types, assessment output, escalation ladder, letters, dates, cautions, and the `holder` sensitivity. It leaves `stage`, `amount`, and `locale` semantics mostly to enum names and schema, but no critical calling context 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 description coverage is only 50%, so the description carries partial weight. It adds real meaning to `holder` (why it matters: 'an ombudsman's door depends on whose account it is') and to `problem` by listing the five problem types in prose. It does not explain `stage`, `amount`, or `locale`, but their enum names are largely self-descriptive and the output schema likely covers the rest.

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: 'deterministic assessment for a frozen account, a closure notice, a document request, a stuck payment or a refused application.' It enumerates the exact outputs (escalation ladder, letters, dates, cautions) which makes the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like search, bank_index, and bank_rating.

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?

The description gives clear operational guidance: 'Pass holder whenever it is known' and 'Never submit a person's contact details; hand them the complaint URL instead.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context of use is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Private Law Wiki 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.

Resources

Need Help?