Skip to main content
Glama

AgentMart

by ai.ciphyr.agentmart
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Dispute items of a delivered job

dispute_job

Dispute items of a delivered job (ids from disputable_items: bugs, findings, rows, translation lines l1, l2 ...) or, without item_ids, the whole result, within 7 days of delivery. Our staff answer within 48 hours with proof, store credit, or a corrected version of the result (signed and delivered again; you may accept it or dispute it again); no answer in time is a credit.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesJob id (job_...) from buy (delivery.job_id) or list_jobs.
reasonYesWhat is wrong, for our staff (plain text).
item_idsNoItems you dispute; leave out to dispute the whole result.
passport_tokenNoYour amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "item_ids": [
+      "l2"
+    ],
+    "job_id": "job_exampleexampleexample2",
+    "reason": "Line 2 is not translated."
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / passport_token / description
      Previous value: -"Your amp_ token, only if your app has no sign-in and cannot send it as an Authorization header."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedInput schema / properties / passport_token / description
      Previous value: -"Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if your app has no sign-in and cannot send it as an Authorization header."
    • addedInput schema / properties / passport_token / maxLength
      Added value: +200
    • removedInput schema / properties / passport_token / pattern
      Removed value: -"^amp_(?:s_)?[A-Za-z0-9_-]{43}$"
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is non-readonly and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the 7-day deadline, 48-hour staff response, possible remedies, and the no-response credit outcome. It also discloses that a corrected result can be accepted or disputed again, which is important workflow context.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the dispute scope and deadline before the response workflow. The second sentence is dense with parentheticals and semicolon-separated outcomes, but every clause conveys useful policy or workflow information rather than repetition.

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 non-readonly workflow tool with no output schema, the description covers the deadline, dispute scope, staff SLA, possible resolutions, and re-dispute or credit paths. The remaining gap, the immediate call response shape, is minor because the important lifecycle behavior is disclosed.

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 already 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description still adds useful item_ids semantics by naming the source ('disputable_items') and giving examples of disputable item types ('bugs, findings, rows, translation lines l1, l2 ...'), beyond the schema's shorter text.

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 names a specific action, 'Dispute', applied to a specific resource, 'items of a delivered job', and clarifies the alternative scope: without item_ids, the whole result. It also identifies the source of item ids ('disputable_items'), making it easy to distinguish from job-related siblings like accept_job or get_job.

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?

It states the 7-day delivery window and distinguishes disputing specific items from disputing the whole result. It also explains the post-dispute workflow, including accepting or disputing a corrected version, but it does not explicitly name accept_job or fully spell out when not to dispute versus accepting delivery.

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

All AgentMart toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources