ph-compliance-mcp

Compute a filing deadline under the Rules of Court

compute_deadline

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate filing deadlines under the Rules of Court using Rule 22 time computation: exclude first day, include last, and skip weekends and legal holidays. Input notice date, filing type, and holiday dates to get the computed deadline.

Instructions

Deterministic filing-deadline calculator under the Rules of Court. Applies Rule 22 computation of time (exclude the first day, include the last; last day on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday runs to the next working day) to the common reglementary periods (Rule 37, Rule 41, Rule 45, Rule 65). Pass legal holidays as ISO dates — they are declared per year by proclamation, so never assume the calendar. Verify the rule text with get_provision or cite_validate before relying on it. Not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`holidays`	No	ISO dates of legal holidays (national holidays are declared per year by proclamation)
`filingType`	Yes	Which reglementary period to compute
`noticeDate`	Yes	ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) of notice of the judgment, order, or resolution
`extensionDays`	No	Extra days for appeal_certiorari_sc (Rule 45 §2, max 30)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`lastDay`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.12.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses deterministic behavior, the exact exclusion/inclusion rule, the handling of weekends and holidays, and the critical dependency on caller-supplied holidays. The warning never to assume the calendar and the 'not legal advice' disclaimer add meaningful behavioral context not present in structured metadata.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: definition, computation rule, parameter guidance, and verification advice. The most important purpose statement is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a legal calculator with a rich output schema and full annotations, the description covers the operative rule, scope, parameter semantics, and reliability caveats. It is sufficient for an agent to select the tool, populate parameters correctly, and interpret the result's authority.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining that holidays must be supplied as ISO dates because national holidays are declared per year by proclamation, and by associating the enum options with specific rules of court. This contextualizes the parameters without repeating schema details.

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 states a specific function (filing-deadline calculator), names the legal basis (Rule 22), and enumerates the covered reglementary periods (Rules 37, 41, 45, 65). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculators like compute_prescription and compute_13th_month.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies (deadline computation under the Rules of Court) and explicitly advises verifying rule text with get_provision or cite_validate. It does not explicitly contrast itself with compute_prescription or compute_13th_month, but the domain framing makes the appropriate use obvious.

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