Tethered Trust

Report a wrong answer (claim)

file_claim

Call this when a product we said would work didn't (within 60 days of the check): send the receipt_id and what happened. Decided within 10 business days; if our answer or data was wrong, the fee paid for that check is refunded and the data corrected. Free. For a plain fit/no-fit report without a claim, use report_outcome.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "receipt_id": "<receipt_id>",
      "what_happened": "<what_happened>"
    },
    "name": "file_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`contact`	No	Optional email for the decision.
`receipt_id`	Yes	The receipt id (rcpt_...) of the check that was wrong.
`evidence_url`	No	Optional link to a photo, the order or a manufacturer page showing the problem.
`what_happened`	Yes	What was bought, what it was used with, and what didn't work.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
```
AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description goes well beyond that: the 60-day eligibility window, the 10-business-day decision SLA, the consequence if the claim is upheld (fee refunded, data corrected), and that filing is free. It does not address duplicate submissions against the same receipt or what the caller receives back, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition, then the payload, then the outcome, then the alternative — no filler sentences and no restatement of the title. Every clause carries either routing or expectation-setting information.

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?

For a non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description supplies the eligibility window, the outcome semantics, and the response timeline an agent needs to set expectations. What it omits is what the call actually returns (a claim identifier, status, or receipt of filing), which matters slightly more here precisely because there is no output schema.

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 all four parameters are already documented in structured form and the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the two required inputs (receipt_id, what happened) without adding format, validation, or usage detail beyond 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?

States a specific action (file a wrong-answer claim) with its eligibility condition ("a product we said would work didn't, within 60 days of the check") and names exactly what to send. The final sentence distinguishes it from the sibling report_outcome by contrast, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger with a time window and an explicit when-not with the alternative named ("For a plain fit/no-fit report without a claim, use report_outcome"). Both sides of the routing decision are stated rather than implied.

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

All Tethered Trust tools Inspect

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

Need Help?