Deterministic, machine-verifiable dispute resolution for A2A escrows.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: filing cases, querying, submitting evidence, setting trust scores, ruling, and verifying. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., file_case, get_case, submit_evidence). Even 'rule' is a concise verb that fits the pattern.
8 tools is well-scoped for an arbitration server: covers filing, evidence, trust, ruling, verification, and querying. Neither too few nor too many.
The tool surface covers the full arbitration lifecycle: case creation, evidence submission, trust score input, ruling, verification, and case listing/retrieval. No obvious gaps.
describe_agentCInspectFleet-standard self-description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description is minimal and does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., output format, side effects). Fails to inform agent behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but under-specified; every word should add value, but 'fleet-standard' is jargon and lacks explanatory power.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description fails to explain the tool's purpose or return value despite having an output schema. Inadequate for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so description adds no meaning beyond schema. Baseline 4 applies per rule for 0-param tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Fleet-standard self-description' indicates the tool describes itself, but 'fleet-standard' is vague and does not clearly specify the what or distinguish from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., file_case, get_case). The phrase provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
file_caseBInspectFile a dispute over an escrow. Opens the evidence window. Parties must be distinct; amount is in minor currency units (cents).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claimant | Yes | ||
| escrow_id | Yes | ||
| respondent | Yes | ||
| amount_minor | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It mentions 'opens the evidence window' but omits side effects, reversibility, or permissions needed for a potentially destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the action's complexity (dispute filing) warrants more context on prerequisites and side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains amount_minor unit and distinct party requirement, but fails to define escrow_id, claimant, respondent beyond the property name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('File a dispute over an escrow') and the resource ('escrow'), with a distinct purpose from siblings like get_case or list_cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It mentions parties must be distinct and amount in cents, but lacks when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., submit_evidence) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_caseAInspectFetch the full case record, including any ruling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It indicates a read operation ('Fetch'), but does not disclose auth requirements, idempotency, or potential errors. For a simple fetch, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks any structure (e.g., bullet points) and could be slightly more informative without significant bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (1 param, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is minimally complete. It covers the main function but omits details like error handling or usage context that could help in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter 'case_id', and the tool description does not explain its format, source, or purpose beyond the name. The description adds no semantic value to the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Fetch') and resource ('case record'), and specifies that it returns the full record including ruling. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_cases' (lists summary) and 'file_case' (creates case).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool is for retrieving full case details, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'list_cases' or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_casesBInspectList cases, optionally filtered by state (FILED|EVIDENCE_OPEN|RULED).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose if results are paginated, require authentication, or have side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one short sentence front-loading the action and filtering option, no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing (not detailed), the description omits pagination, ordering, or permission requirements. Incomplete for a list endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero description coverage; the description compensates by listing possible state values (FILED, EVIDENCE_OPEN, RULED), but does not explain their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists cases with an optional state filter, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_case (single case) and file_case (create).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_case or other listing tools. Does not mention alternative filter options or when filtering by state is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ruleAInspectIssue the deterministic ruling: allocates 100% of the disputed amount from evidence weights + trust scores, and emits an escrow instruction (release/refund). Exactly-once — re-ruling returns the existing ruling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description discloses deterministic nature, allocation from evidence weights/trust scores, escrow emission, and idempotency of re-ruling. This is good but could mention side effects like state mutation more explicitly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundant information, efficient and front-loaded with key purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main action and idempotency but lacks prerequisites (e.g., evidence and trust scores must be set). Output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter 'case_id' is not described beyond its name. Description adds no meaning about the format, source, or constraints of case_id, relying solely on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it issues a deterministic ruling, allocates disputed amount, and emits escrow instruction. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying exactly-once behavior and that re-ruling returns the existing ruling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly says to use once per case due to exactly-once semantics. However, does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like verify_ruling or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
set_trust_scoresBInspectAttach trust-oracle reputation scores (party -> [0,1]) as ruling inputs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scores | Yes | ||
| case_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since annotations are absent, the description must explain behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether scores overwrite existing ones, require permissions, or have side effects. Only the basic attach action is mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is efficient but could include additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested object parameter, lack of annotations, and context of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output schema or how scores integrate with other tools, leaving gaps for proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'scores' parameter by specifying it maps parties to numbers in [0,1]. However, the 'case_id' parameter is not elaborated, and the schema coverage is 0%, so more detail would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'attach', the object 'trust-oracle reputation scores', and the purpose 'as ruling inputs'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'rule' and 'submit_evidence' by specifying the type of input.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'submit_evidence' or 'rule'. The description does not mention prerequisites or when to avoid using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_evidenceBInspectSubmit evidence while the case is open. kind: delivery_proof (weight 3), log (2), or statement (1). Only the named parties may submit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| party | Yes | ||
| case_id | Yes | ||
| content | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only hints at behavior (e.g., when to submit, who can submit). It does not disclose outcomes, side effects, or safety considerations of the submission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two efficient sentences that are front-loaded with essential information, containing no unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 4 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks detail on most parameters (content, party, case_id) and does not explain return values or side effects. It feels incomplete for a submission tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for the 'kind' parameter by listing possible values and their weights. However, other parameters like case_id, party, and content are unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Submit evidence') and the resource ('while the case is open'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like file_case by specifying the evidence kinds and party restrictions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides some usage context by stating the condition 'while the case is open' and who may submit ('only the named parties'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_rulingAInspectRecompute the ruling from its cited evidence + trust inputs and check it matches the stored allocation (machine-checkable justice).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-like verification but uses 'recompute' which could imply mutation. It does not clarify side effects, required input state, or behavior on mismatch. For a verification tool, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core function efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb and purpose. A slight improvement could be separating into two sentences for clarity, but overall it is concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one input and an output schema (as indicated), the description provides sufficient context for a verification tool. It explains the mechanism (recomputing from evidence and trust inputs) and purpose (checking against stored allocation). The sibling tools offer additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only one parameter (case_id) and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the tool description does not expand on format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Recompute the ruling from its cited evidence + trust inputs and check it matches the stored allocation'), using a specific verb ('verify' implied) and resource ('ruling'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rule' and 'get_case' by focusing on verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'rule' which might create a ruling. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'machine-checkable justice' hints at post-submission verification but is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.