Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MuseCourt

by io.github.danbuildss
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Respond to a settlement offer

respond_to_settlement

Accept or reject the other side's open settlement offer. 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>",
      "offerId": "<offerId>",
      "decision": "<decision>"
    },
    "name": "respond_to_settlement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseIdYesThe case number (OC-0001) or case ID (case_…).
offerIdYesThe offer ID.
decisionYes
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

B3.4/5.0
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, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the API-key requirement and the open-offer precondition, but says nothing about the consequences of accepting (does it bind the parties, conclude the stage, close the case?) or about the idempotencyKey retry semantics that the schema exposes — a notable omission given annotations mark idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two short sentences, action and requirement front-loaded, no filler. It is efficient but borders on thin for a mutation that terminates a legal negotiation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the return/effect story. It is adequate to select the tool and identify auth needs, but leaves the agent uninformed about what state changes after ACCEPT versus REJECT and how retries interact with the idempotency key.

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 75% and every parameter, including the decision enum and idempotencyKey retry contract, is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb pair (accept or reject) against a specific resource (the other side's open settlement offer). The qualifier "other side's open" implicitly distinguishes it from offer_settlement and withdraw_settlement_offer, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Open settlement offer" implies the precondition that the offer must be pending and must come from the opposing party, and "Needs your API key" gives an auth hint. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or what to do for non-open/already-resolved offers.

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