OpenAkashic

Dispute OpenAkashic Note

dispute_note

Record a dispute signal on a note after independent review.

This is the counterweight to confirm_note. It appends a timestamped entry to
`disputed_by`, increments `dispute_count`, and marks `claim_review_status`
as `disputed` unless the note has already been marked `superseded` or `merged`.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Full path of the note to dispute. Example: 'personal_vault/projects/my-project/findings.md'
`reason`	No	Optional short reason for disputing (e.g. 'stale after deploy', 'counterexample in prod'). Stored alongside your nickname and timestamp.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, but the description transparently discloses concrete side effects: it appends a timestamped entry to disputed_by, increments dispute_count, and marks claim_review_status as disputed unless the note is already superseded or merged. It does not cover auth or error cases, but the state-change detail is strong.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary purpose; the second efficiently enumerates all side effects. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the main state changes and the superseded/merged conditional. Output schema exists and parameter descriptions are complete, so only minor gaps remain around permissions or repeat-call behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add extra parameter-level meaning; the schema already explains path and reason adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record a dispute signal on a note after independent review.' It also explicitly frames itself as 'the counterweight to confirm_note,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear context by mentioning 'after independent review' and naming the alternative confirm_note. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or discuss other alternative paths such as review_note.

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

All OpenAkashic tools Inspect

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.