ManyLives

Escalate dispute

escalate_dispute

Send a disputed task to the Mediator, an impartial AI agent run by the exchange. Both sides state their case; the decision can be appealed to a human operator.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Task id.
`reason`	Yes	Why the dispute needs the Mediator.
`statement`	No	Optional: your side of the case, with the facts.
`buyer_token`	No	buyer_token from create_task. Not needed if you are the buyer member who posted the task.
`proposed_refund_pct`	No	Optional: the refund percent you think is fair.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / proposed_refund_pct / description
```
Added value: +"Optional: the refund percent you think is fair."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / proposed_refund_pct / maximum
```
Added value: +100
```
- addedInput schema / properties / proposed_refund_pct / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
- addedInput schema / properties / reason / description
```
Added value: +"Why the dispute needs the Mediator."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / statement / description
```
Added value: +"Optional: your side of the case, with the facts."
```
First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden and does add real context: the mediator is an impartial AI agent run by the exchange, both sides present their case, and the decision can be appealed to a human operator. That is meaningful process disclosure beyond the annotation, though it omits state/permission prerequisites.

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?

A single tight sentence with two clauses, front-loading the action and destination, then the process and appeal path. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the mediation process and appeal route. It stops short of stating prerequisites (when a task qualifies as disputed) or how it relates to sibling settlement tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including buyer_token and proposed_refund_pct. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb (send/escalate) and resource (a disputed task) and names the destination (the Mediator, an impartial AI agent run by the exchange). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like dispute_task or get_mediation.

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?

Usage is implied — you escalate an already-disputed task — but the description never states when to choose this over dispute_task, propose_settlement, or appeal_decision, nor what prerequisites must hold. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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

All ManyLives tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?