Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GLO Law

by org.glolaw
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Count a deadline from a rule

deadline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Counts a deadline from a date the user gives, under a rule whose text is in GLO’s mirror, and returns every counting step beside that text. Counted: K.S.A. 60-206 (Kansas civil procedure; a period in days the user supplies from the rule or order that sets it, forward or backward, with three days added after service by mail or by leaving it with the clerk) and K.A.R. 44-15-101b (Kansas Department of Corrections grievances: 15 days from discovery excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, never later than one year after the event), Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and Fed. R. App. P. 26 (federal civil and appellate time, a period in days the user supplies, with the three days 6(d) and 26(c) add) and 28 U.S.C. 2107(a) (thirty days after entry, counted by FRAP 26(a)). Where the text can be read more than one way, each reading is counted with its own date and earliest is the date safe under every reading. Not counted: periods in hours. The Kansas Supreme Court’s holiday orders are held for 2025 to 2027 only, counted for K.S.A. 60-206 as one reading beside a reading without them; other orders, days declared by order, and states’ holidays other than Kansas’s list are not in the mirror. Returns status, readings (id, label, date, steps), earliest, latest, warnings (each applies to the date given), the rule row (citation, verbatim text, corpus, as_of, source_url, ambiguities, exceptions, last_verified), detail, query and a note. Pure computation from the stored rule text, with no database query. Counting is information, not legal advice. The sources tool returns this tool’s full coverage statement.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoks-60-206, frcp-6 and frap-26: the period in days, 1 to 3650, from the rule or order that sets it (usc-28-2107-a: omit, or 30)
ruleYesthe rule: "ks-60-206" (K.S.A. 60-206), "kar-44-15-101b" (K.A.R. 44-15-101b), "frcp-6" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 6), "frap-26" (Fed. R. App. P. 26) or "usc-28-2107-a" (28 U.S.C. 2107(a), thirty days after entry)
serviceNoks-60-206, frcp-6 and frap-26: how the paper was served. ks-60-206: "mail" and "clerk" add three days; frcp-6: those and "other" (two readings: consented to in writing or not); frap-26: all but "electronic" and "personal"
directionNoks-60-206, frcp-6 and frap-26: "after" (default) or "before" the start date
event_dateNokar-44-15-101b only, required: YYYY-MM-DD, the day of the event itself (the one-year limit)
start_dateYesYYYY-MM-DD: for ks-60-206, frcp-6 and frap-26 the day the period runs from (or the event it counts back from); for kar-44-15-101b the day the event was discovered; for usc-28-2107-a the day of entry

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description's added value is the interpretive behavior: ambiguous text is counted under every reading with 'earliest' as the safe date, Kansas holiday orders are held only for 2025–2027 as one reading, and it is pure computation with no database query. Strong disclosure of limitations, though the warning semantics ('each applies to the date given') stay slightly opaque.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, but the body is a long run-on sentence packing five rule summaries and a return-field inventory into dense clause chains. The information earns its place, but the delivery is hard to scan and structure could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract (status, readings with id/label/date/steps, earliest, latest, warnings, rule row with citation/text/corpus/as_of/source_url, detail, query, note) and states the coverage limits. Nearly complete for a complex tool; only the precise meaning of a few return fields and warning attachment remains implicit.

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% and the enum descriptions already explain per-rule parameter applicability, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces rule-specific behavior (user-supplied days, three-day service additions, one-year outer limit for grievances) but adds little that the schema fields do not already state.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: counts a deadline from a start date under an enumerated set of named rules, and returns counting steps alongside the verbatim rule text. The enumerated coverage (K.S.A. 60-206, K.A.R. 44-15-101b, FRCP 6, FRAP 26, 28 U.S.C. 2107(a)) makes it unmistakable against siblings like statute or citation.

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?

Explicit in-scope (days-based periods, forward or backward, service add-ons) and explicit out-of-scope ('Not counted: periods in hours'), plus a routing pointer to the sources tool for the full coverage statement. Lacks an explicit contrast with a sibling tool that might otherwise be chosen for a similar date question.

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

All GLO Law toolsInspect
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