Skip to main content
Glama

agentic-commerce

by io.bosonprotocol

revoke_voucher

Destructive

Revokes a committed (not yet redeemed) voucher on behalf of the seller, returning funds to the buyer. Caller must be the seller assistant. Returns unsigned transaction data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configIdYesBoson/Fermion Protocol deployment identifier. Format: '<env>-<chainId>-<index>' e.g. 'production-137-0' (Polygon mainnet), 'testing-80002-0' (Amoy testnet). Call get_config_ids to list all valid values for this server.
exchangeIdYesNumeric ID of the exchange/dispute to act on. Obtain from get_exchanges or the response of commit_to_offer.
executionModeNo'direct' = standard on-chain tx (sign locally with your wallet → send_signed_transaction). 'metaTx' = gasless relay via Biconomy (send_meta_transaction). Defaults to 'direct'.
signerAddressYesEthereum address that will sign and send this transaction. Must match the wallet that will sign the returned transaction locally.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the destructive nature (funds are returned, voucher revoked) and returns unsigned transaction data, which goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true). No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description mentions 'Returns unsigned transaction data' but does not explain what steps follow (e.g., signing and sending via send_signed_transaction). Given no output schema, more context on the next action would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so score is at baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Revokes'), the resource ('committed voucher'), and the effect ('returning funds to the buyer'). It also specifies the caller role ('seller assistant'). This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like cancel_voucher, though not explicitly differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides a prerequisite ('Caller must be the seller assistant') but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel_voucher or redeem_voucher. No exclusions or contextual when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

All agentic-commerce toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there is overlap among multiple commit_to_* and sign_receive_* variants that could confuse an agent. The tool boundaries are clear for the core workflow, but the sheer number of similar operations slightly reduces clarity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., commit_to_offer, create_seller). Some inconsistency exists with mixed verbs like 'store_', 'sign_', 'send_', but the pattern is largely predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 63 tools, the server is heavy but covers a complex protocol (offer lifecycle, disputes, metadata, meta-transactions). The count is borderline; some tools (e.g., multiple signing helpers) could be consolidated, but the scope justifies the size.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core protocol flows comprehensively: create, commit, redeem, dispute, resolve, void, and metadata storage. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated 'get_offer_by_id' but filtering suffices), and meta-transaction support is extensive.

Resources