dispute_direct_settlement_taskDIRECT SETTLEMENT FLOW ONLY. Agent raises a dispute about the work or the on-site payment. Task transitions from Completed → Disputed. Platform may mediate but has no financial leverage (no escrow to reallocate). For escrow disputes use the standard dispute flow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your API key (m2m_...) | |
| reason | Yes | Reason for the dispute (required) | |
| taskId | Yes | Task ID to dispute |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key state transition (Completed → Disputed) and adds important context about the platform's limitations ('no financial leverage'). While annotations provide only false flags with no safety signals, the description conveys the core behavioral outcome and constraints without contradicting the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the scope first ('DIRECT SETTLEMENT FLOW ONLY'), then the action, transition, and caveat, followed by an alternative. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no waste.
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?
For a tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, state transition, and constraints. It lacks explicit details about error conditions or response format, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of full schema descriptions, it is sufficiently complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight meaning by indicating that the 'reason' parameter relates to 'the work or the on-site payment,' but this is a minor embellishment. It does not significantly improve understanding beyond the schema descriptions already present.
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 specific action: 'Agent raises a dispute about the work or the on-site payment.' It also defines the resource and transition ('Task transitions from Completed → Disputed'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the escrow dispute flow, making it distinct from sibling tools like open_task_dispute.
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 opening 'DIRECT SETTLEMENT FLOW ONLY' immediately indicates the intended context, and the final sentence provides an explicit alternative: 'For escrow disputes use the standard dispute flow.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and when not to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.