Apier MCP Server

Norwegian filing calendar

get_public_deadlines

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the universal Norwegian regulatory filing calendar for a year, covering MVA, A-melding, and annual accounts deadlines that apply to all businesses. Use it to find upcoming filing dates without needing an organization number.

Instructions

Compute the universal Norwegian regulatory filing calendar — the deadlines that apply to every Norwegian business of the covered categories (MVA, A-melding, Årsregnskap), independent of any specific organisation. One entry per (obligation, period) pair for a single Europe/Oslo calendar year: a stable obligation_id (e.g. MVA_FILING_BIMONTHLY), the due_date as ISO 8601 in Europe/Oslo (DST-aware), the lovdata legal_reference, a recurring flag, and a business_day_adjusted flag. Choose this tool for questions like 'when is the next MVA filing deadline' that don't depend on a specific org_number — it requires no organisasjonsnummer. Deterministic: same input + same rulebook_version → byte-identical calendar. Input: optional year (integer 2020–2100; defaults to the current Oslo year). Failure modes: SCOPE_INSUFFICIENT (needs read:rulebook), VALIDATION_FAILED on year shape. For a specific company's filing calendar rather than the universal one, use get_company_deadlines instead. Docs: https://www.apier.no/docs/guides/norway-corporate-tax-return-deadline

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	No	Europe/Oslo calendar year the calendar should cover (2020–2100). Omitted → the current Oslo year at the endpoint.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_meta`	No
`result`	Yes	The universal Norwegian filing calendar for one Europe/Oslo year, independent of any specific organisation.
`metadata`	Yes
`justification`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: deterministic output, DST-aware Europe/Oslo timezone, failure modes (SCOPE_INSUFFICIENT, VALIDATION_FAILED), and output structure (one entry per obligation/period pair, obligation_id, due_date, legal_reference, etc.). This adds substantial context beyond annotations.

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 is detailed yet every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, output structure, usage guideline, determinism, input, failure modes, alternative tool, and docs link. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 an output schema present, return values are already covered. The description fills all remaining context: usage scenarios, failure modes, determinism, timezone specifics, and sibling tool differentiation. It is complete for a tool with one optional parameter.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the year's default behavior ('defaults to the current Oslo year'), the valid range (2020–2100), and the failure mode VALIDATION_FAILED on year shape, which are not fully captured in the schema.

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 computes the universal Norwegian regulatory filing calendar for covered categories (MVA, A-melding, Årsregnskap), independent of any specific organisation. It uses a specific verb (compute) and resource (universal filing calendar), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_company_deadlines.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Choose this tool for questions like when is the next MVA filing deadline that don't depend on a specific org_number — it requires no organisasjonsnummer.' Also names the alternative: 'For a specific company's filing calendar rather than the universal one, use get_company_deadlines instead.'

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