Skip to main content
Glama

ForthClear Liquidation Marketplace

Get dispute status

get_dispute_status
Read-only

Read the claim on an order you placed. Requires buyer read access. Requires sign-in with buyer access. OAuth discovery: /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server (scope buyer:read).

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": {
      "order_id": "<order_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_dispute_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
order_idYesForthClear order id.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNo
order_idYes
descriptionNo
reported_atNo
claim_statusNo
order_statusYes
payout_pausedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds concrete access requirements beyond the annotations: buyer read access, sign-in with buyer access, and the OAuth scope 'buyer:read' with discovery endpoint. This is useful operational context that the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations do not convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but 'Requires buyer read access' and 'Requires sign-in with buyer access' are near-duplicative, and the OAuth discovery URL is somewhat tangential to invoking the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the auth requirements are spelled out for a single-parameter read operation. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens when no dispute exists on the order.

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% for the single order_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier beyond the 'order you placed' framing, which is the expected 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Read the claim on an order you placed'), which distinguishes it from the write-oriented sibling open_dispute without naming it explicitly. It is clear but lacks direct sibling routing.

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?

Usage is implied by 'on an order you placed', which restricts this to the buyer's own orders, and by the read framing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no mention of the related open_dispute or get_order_status tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources