submit_statementGive your side to the Mediator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| statement | Yes | 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. | |
| mediation_id | Yes | The mediation id. | |
| proposed_refund_pct | No | Optional: the refund percent you think is fair. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / mediation_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The mediation id."Input schema / properties / proposed_refund_pct / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional: the refund percent you think is fair."Input schema / properties / proposed_refund_pct / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / proposed_refund_pct / minimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / statement / descriptionAdded value: +"Your side of the case, with the facts."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false (a write operation). The description adds no behavioral context: no mention of auth requirements (buyer_token), whether the statement is binding/final, whether it can be edited, or consequences for the mediation. For a write tool this leaves the burden unmet.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being efficiently informative.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But for a dispute/mediation write action with auth nuance (buyer_token) and a refund proposal field, the description provides too little context for an agent to act confidently.
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 100%, so all four parameters (statement, buyer_token, mediation_id, proposed_refund_pct) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so 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 'Give your side to the Mediator' essentially restates the name/title (submit_statement) in evocative terms without naming the operation clearly. It implies a mediation context but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like propose_settlement, respond_settlement, or escalate_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?
There is no when-to-use guidance. It does not say when an agent should submit a statement versus proposing or responding to a settlement, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active mediation or buyer_token.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.