final-notice

preview_demand_letter

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedJul 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / debtorType

Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "enum": [
+    "individual",
+    "business"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / deliveryMethod

Added value: +{
+  "description": "How the letter is sent; printed as a notation above the recipient (e.g. 'By registered post and email'). Optional.",
+  "enum": [
+    "registered",
+    "email",
+    "both"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / enclosures

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Enclosed documents, printed as 'Encl.: …' under the signature (e.g. 'Copy of invoice INV-123'). Optional.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJun 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool renders text without producing a PDF, but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or free of side effects, nor mention authentication or rate limits. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description consists of two well-structured sentences: the first states the action and output type, the second states the use case. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

While the description covers purpose and basic behavior, it lacks details on the output structure (no output schema). With 23 parameters and nested objects, the agent might benefit from a clearer indication of how the JSON is structured. However, the description is sufficient for a preview tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are adequately documented. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool renders demand letter text content as structured JSON without producing a PDF, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling generate_demand_letter by noting it is for review before generating.

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 explicitly says 'Use to review or refine wording before generating,' giving clear context for when to use. Alternatives are implied by sibling names (generate_demand_letter for final output), but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

All final-notice tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

preview_demand_letter

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources