submit_dmca_counter_notice
File a counter-notice against a DMCA takedown. Always free.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| block_id | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| complaint_id | Yes | ||
| counter_argument | Yes | ||
| consent_to_jurisdiction | Yes |
PromptDNA
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Only discloses that the tool is free, but lacks details on side effects, legal implications, prerequisites, or success/failure conditions. No annotations to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two sentences) but not detailed enough to be effective. It is concise but at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex legal tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully inadequate. It does not explain the process, expected outcome, or how to obtain necessary IDs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the 5 required parameters (e.g., what 'counter_argument' or 'consent_to_jurisdiction' entail). The agent must infer all meaning from names alone.
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 clearly states the action ('File a counter-notice') and the resource ('against a DMCA takedown'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'submit_dmca_takedown' which handles the initial takedown.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives (e.g., when receiving a DMCA takedown vs. filing one). The mention of 'always free' is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource. For example, compose_prompt assembles prompts, search_blocks searches, register_agent initiates registration. Even related tools like get_block and get_block_versions are clearly differentiated by purpose (current vs history).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compose_prompt, submit_block, verify_registration). No mixing of naming conventions, making it predictable for an agent.
Tool Count4/5
With 20 tools, the scope is broad but well-justified by the diverse functionality (search, submission, ratings, registration, DMCA, etc.). It is on the higher end but not excessive for a full-featured platform.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers core workflows like searching, viewing, creating, and rating blocks, but lacks update or delete operations for blocks. Also missing tools for managing user profiles or block editing, which are notable gaps.