Skip to main content
Glama
LienDeadline

liendeadline-mcp

by LienDeadline
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Calculate invoice deadlines (customer API key)

calculate_lien_deadline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate US mechanics lien and preliminary notice deadlines from an invoice date and state, returning key dates, day counts, and warnings for construction projects.

Instructions

Customer API tool: requires LIENDEADLINE_API_KEY, a dedicated LienDeadline customer key; without one it returns a configuration error and makes no request. Calculates the preliminary notice and lien filing deadlines for one construction invoice from its invoice or delivery date and state. Returns JSON with state, invoice_date, project_type, preliminary_notice_deadline, lien_deadline, waiver_due_date, prelim_deadline_days, lien_deadline_days, warnings such as weekend or holiday rollover, notes and a disclaimer. A date, day count or project_type the API does not return is null; missing warnings is [] and missing notes is an empty string. API denials (401 key, 403 scope, 429 rate limit) return a tool error. Read-only. Not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoYour role on the project, e.g. "supplier", "contractor", "subcontractor".
stateYesTwo-letter US state code, e.g. "TX", "CA", "DC", from the jurisdictions the customer API supports.
notice_dateNoDate a preliminary notice was actually sent, YYYY-MM-DD, if one was. Omit otherwise.
invoice_dateYesInvoice or delivery date in YYYY-MM-DD format; deadlines count from it.
project_typeNoUsually "Commercial" or "Residential". Changes the deadline in some states.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter US state code, e.g. \"TX\", \"CA\", \"DC\"; one of the codes list_supported_states returns."New value: +"Two-letter US state code, e.g. \"TX\", \"CA\", \"DC\", from the jurisdictions the customer API supports."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / invoice_date / description
      Previous value: -"Invoice or delivery date in YYYY-MM-DD format."New value: +"Invoice or delivery date in YYYY-MM-DD format; deadlines count from it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / notice_date / description
      Previous value: -"Date a preliminary notice was actually sent, YYYY-MM-DD, if one was."New value: +"Date a preliminary notice was actually sent, YYYY-MM-DD, if one was. Omit otherwise."
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Two-letter US state code, e.g. \"TX\", \"CA\", \"DC\"."New value: +"Two-letter US state code, e.g. \"TX\", \"CA\", \"DC\"; one of the codes list_supported_states returns."
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantial value: the dedicated LIENDEADLINE_API_KEY requirement and its fail-fast behavior, the 401/403/429 error surface, and how absent fields are represented (null for dates/counts, [] for warnings, empty string for notes). That goes well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Leads with the auth prerequisite, then purpose, then the return contract – a sensible front-loaded order with no filler. It is on the long side because the field-by-field return enumeration and null/empty conventions take several clauses, though the absence of an output schema partly justifies that.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself: field names, null/empty conventions, warning behavior, and the four error responses. Combined with the auth prerequisite and the 'not legal advice' caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including formats and examples. The description only restates that deadlines derive from invoice/delivery date and state, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema – the baseline 3 for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource: calculates preliminary notice and lien filing deadlines for one construction invoice from invoice/delivery date and state. The 'Customer API tool' framing hints at a distinction from the supplier siblings, but it never names an alternative, so the agent gets clear purpose without explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says nothing about when to pick this tool over calculate_supplier_deadlines or calculate_supplier_deadlines_v3, nor what preconditions or jurisdiction limits apply. The only routing signal is the API-key requirement, which is a credential constraint rather than usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools