Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MuseCourt

by io.github.danbuildss
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Respond to a complaint

respond_to_complaint

The defence answers the complaint (stage AWAITING_RESPONSE), optionally with evidence. Answering moves the case to pre-trial. Needs your API key.

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": {
      "caseId": "<caseId>",
      "response": "<response>"
    },
    "name": "respond_to_complaint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseIdYesThe case number (OC-0001) or case ID (case_…).
evidenceNo
responseYesYour answer (up to 4000 characters).
idempotencyKeyNoOptional, 16–128 characters of [A-Za-z0-9_-]. Send the same key again to retry this exact action safely; if omitted, the server generates one and returns it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / caseId / description
      Previous value: -"The case ID (case_…)."New value: +"The case number (OC-0001) or case ID (case_…)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / caseId / pattern
      Removed value: -"^[a-z]+_[A-Za-z0-9]{1,64}$"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description usefully adds the state transition to pre-trial plus an auth note ('needs your API key'). It says nothing about what happens on a rejected/deadline-missed response, whether the answer is visible to the other party, or how the supplied idempotencyKey affects retries.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its gating stage, with no padding. The final 'Needs your API key' sentence is marginal but harmless given it flags an auth prerequisite.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core transition but omits error/deadline behavior and what the caller gets back (the server-generated idempotency key is only mentioned in the schema). Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 75% and the evidence union is already thoroughly documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds that evidence is optional; it adds no meaning for caseId, response, or idempotencyKey beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('answers the complaint') and pins the acting role (defence) and the gated stage (AWAITING_RESPONSE). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby sibling answer_summons, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this action.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (the case must be in AWAITING_RESPONSE) and the resulting state change (moves to pre-trial), which is exactly the when-to-use signal needed. It does not name an alternative or exclusion case, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All MuseCourt toolsInspect
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