final-notice
Server Details
Free demand-letter PDF generator for unpaid invoices, 80+ jurisdictions, 29 languages.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- ptrinh/finalnotice-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- Final Notice
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing jurisdictions, previewing content, and generating the final PDF. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_jurisdictions, preview_demand_letter, generate_demand_letter), making the API predictable.
Three tools is minimal but appropriate for the narrow scope of generating demand letters. The set covers the essential workflow without being overly sparse.
The tools cover the core workflow: discover jurisdictions, preview text, generate PDF. Minor gaps like dedicated jurisdiction detail or template customization are absent but not critical for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolsgenerate_demand_letterBInspect
Generate the finished demand-letter PDF (formal letter + matching envelope), localized and legally formatted for the jurisdiction. Returns the PDF as a base64 resource. Free, no registration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank | No | Payment/bank details keyed by field (e.g. {bankName, iban, accountNumber}). Optional. | |
| tone | No | Escalation level. Default: final. | |
| amount | Yes | Amount owed, as a number (no separators). Required, > 0. | |
| attested | No | Confirms authorization to send under the sender name. Required when senderType is business/firm. | |
| currency | No | ISO 4217 currency (optional; defaults to the jurisdiction's). | |
| language | No | Letter language code (e.g. en, es, fr, de, pt, ar, zh, ja). Must be offered for the jurisdiction; defaults to en. | |
| senderRef | No | Creditor's own reference number (optional). | |
| debtorName | Yes | Debtor name. Required. | |
| debtorType | No | Whether the debtor is a private individual (consumer) or a business. 'individual' activates jurisdiction consumer rules (e.g. GB Pre-Action Protocol 30-day floor, NL WIK wording). Default: business. | |
| enclosures | No | Enclosed documents, printed as 'Encl.: …' under the signature (e.g. 'Copy of invoice INV-123'). Optional. | |
| senderName | Yes | Creditor name (person or business). Required. | |
| senderType | No | Creditor type. Business/firm requires attested=true. | |
| signerName | No | Name of the person signing (optional; defaults to senderName). | |
| description | No | What the debt is for (optional). | |
| senderTitle | No | Signer's job title (optional). | |
| deadlineDays | No | Days from issue to pay (optional; default 14). | |
| jurisdiction | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code of the debtor (e.g. US, GB, DE, BR, AE). Use list_jurisdictions for the full set; XX = generic/international. | |
| originalDate | No | ISO date the debt was incurred/invoiced (optional). | |
| debtorAddress | Yes | Debtor postal address, multi-line. Required. | |
| invoiceNumber | No | Invoice/account number (optional). | |
| senderAddress | Yes | Creditor postal address, multi-line (\n separated). Required. | |
| senderContact | No | Creditor email/phone (optional). | |
| deliveryMethod | No | How the letter is sent; printed as a notation above the recipient (e.g. 'By registered post and email'). Optional. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a base64 PDF and is free with no registration, but does not clarify if it has side effects or modifies any data. The generative nature implies no destructive behavior, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences: the first conveys the core function and output, the second adds free/no registration. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (23 parameters, 5 required, nested objects, enums), the description is too brief. It does not explain how jurisdiction affects formatting, the meaning of 'localized and legally formatted', or that previewing is possible via sibling tools. More context is needed for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters thoroughly. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a finished demand-letter PDF with envelope, localized and legally formatted. It specifies the output format (base64 PDF) and distinguishes itself from siblings list_jurisdictions and preview_demand_letter by indicating it produces the final document.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like preview_demand_letter or list_jurisdictions. It does not mention prerequisites or context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_jurisdictionsAInspect
List every supported country/jurisdiction (code, name, currency, default language) plus the available languages and tones. Call this first to pick a valid jurisdiction + language.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden. Discloses returned data (code, name, currency, default language, languages, tones). Implies read-only but does not explicitly state non-destructive nature or safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. First states functionality, second provides use guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what to expect (data fields) and when to use (initial call). Complete given simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero parameters (100% coverage baseline 4). Description enriches meaning by detailing output fields and the tool's purpose, exceeding baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear and specific: lists supported jurisdictions with fields (code, name, currency, default language) plus languages and tones. Distinguishes from siblings generate_demand_letter and preview_demand_letter, which are about generating letters, not listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Call this first to pick a valid jurisdiction + language', providing clear when-to-use context. No explicit when-not-to, but the guidance is direct and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
preview_demand_letterAInspect
Render the demand letter's text content (title, subject, body paragraphs, amount line, legal reference, closing) as structured JSON, without producing a PDF. Use to review or refine wording before generating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank | No | Payment/bank details keyed by field (e.g. {bankName, iban, accountNumber}). Optional. | |
| tone | No | Escalation level. Default: final. | |
| amount | Yes | Amount owed, as a number (no separators). Required, > 0. | |
| attested | No | Confirms authorization to send under the sender name. Required when senderType is business/firm. | |
| currency | No | ISO 4217 currency (optional; defaults to the jurisdiction's). | |
| language | No | Letter language code (e.g. en, es, fr, de, pt, ar, zh, ja). Must be offered for the jurisdiction; defaults to en. | |
| senderRef | No | Creditor's own reference number (optional). | |
| debtorName | Yes | Debtor name. Required. | |
| debtorType | No | Whether the debtor is a private individual (consumer) or a business. 'individual' activates jurisdiction consumer rules (e.g. GB Pre-Action Protocol 30-day floor, NL WIK wording). Default: business. | |
| enclosures | No | Enclosed documents, printed as 'Encl.: …' under the signature (e.g. 'Copy of invoice INV-123'). Optional. | |
| senderName | Yes | Creditor name (person or business). Required. | |
| senderType | No | Creditor type. Business/firm requires attested=true. | |
| signerName | No | Name of the person signing (optional; defaults to senderName). | |
| description | No | What the debt is for (optional). | |
| senderTitle | No | Signer's job title (optional). | |
| deadlineDays | No | Days from issue to pay (optional; default 14). | |
| jurisdiction | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code of the debtor (e.g. US, GB, DE, BR, AE). Use list_jurisdictions for the full set; XX = generic/international. | |
| originalDate | No | ISO date the debt was incurred/invoiced (optional). | |
| debtorAddress | Yes | Debtor postal address, multi-line. Required. | |
| invoiceNumber | No | Invoice/account number (optional). | |
| senderAddress | Yes | Creditor postal address, multi-line (\n separated). Required. | |
| senderContact | No | Creditor email/phone (optional). | |
| deliveryMethod | No | How the letter is sent; printed as a notation above the recipient (e.g. 'By registered post and email'). Optional. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool does not produce PDF and returns structured JSON with key components listed. However, it does not mention validation behavior, error handling, or side effects, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core function. Every word adds value, with no wasted text. Ideal length for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 23 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context about the tool's purpose and output. It could mention the output structure more explicitly but remains functional for an agent to decide when to invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renders demand letter text as structured JSON without producing a PDF. It uses specific verbs (Render, review, refine) and distinguishes from the sibling generate_demand_letter by explicitly stating it does not produce a PDF.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use to review or refine wording before generating,' which implies it is a preparatory step before generating the PDF. It contrasts with generate_demand_letter but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.