Skip to main content
Glama
YosefHayim

ebay-mcp

by YosefHayim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ebay_update_payment_dispute_evidence

Update existing evidence for an eBay payment dispute by providing the evidence set ID and additional files or line items to strengthen your case.

Instructions

Update existing evidence in a payment dispute.

Required OAuth Scope: sell.fulfillment Minimum Scope: https://api.ebay.com/oauth/api_scope/sell.fulfillment

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesGenerated updateEvidence request body
paymentDisputeIdYesThe unique payment dispute ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.14.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / body
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Generated updateEvidence request body",
+  "properties": {
+    "evidenceId": {
+      "description": "Evidence set ID to update",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "evidenceType": {
+      "description": "Evidence type, e.g. PROOF_OF_DELIVERY",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "files": {
+      "description": "Evidence files to attach",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "fileId": {
+            "description": "File ID from uploadEvidenceFile",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "lineItems": {
+      "description": "Line items this evidence covers",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "itemId": {
+            "description": "eBay item ID",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "lineItemId": {
+            "description": "Order line item ID",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / evidenceId
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The evidence ID to update",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / evidenceType
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Updated evidence type",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / files
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Updated file IDs",
-  "items": {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "fileId": {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "fileId"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / lineItems
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Updated line items",
-  "items": {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "itemId": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "lineItemId": {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / paymentDisputeId / description
      Previous value: -"The payment dispute ID"New value: +"The unique payment dispute ID"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "paymentDisputeId",
-  "evidenceId"
-]New value: +[
+  "paymentDisputeId",
+  "body"
+]
  2. First observedv1.8.10

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update replaces or merges evidence, idempotency, error cases, or return values.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. OAuth scope is included as a separate line. No filler or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite complete schema, the description lacks context on how the update works, what the body structure requires (e.g., evidenceId is required), and any output or side effects. Not complete for a mutation with nested parameters.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Update existing evidence in a payment dispute,' providing a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing evidence in a payment dispute'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add' and 'upload'.

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., adding evidence, uploading files). No mention of prerequisites or context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools