VISA Dispute Advisor
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| extensions | {
"io.modelcontextprotocol/ui": {}
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| search_visa_rulesA | Search VISA Dispute Management Guidelines for rules relevant to a dispute. Args: scenario: Free-text description of the dispute (cardholder claim, merchant response, transaction type, etc.). Returns: A ranked list of matching VISA rule candidates, each containing: condition_id – e.g. "13.1" title – section heading snippet – relevant text excerpt score – cosine similarity score (0–1, higher = more relevant) |
| query_warehouseA | Retrieve the dispute history for a merchant from the data warehouse. Args: merchant_id: The merchant identifier (e.g. "MER-001"). Returns: A dict containing: merchant_id – the queried ID merchant_name – registered name (or None) total_cases – total number of dispute cases on record resolutions – breakdown: {merchant_won, merchant_lost, settled, pending} cases – list of individual case records (date, amount, type, res) |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools serve completely distinct purposes: one searches Visa dispute rules, the other retrieves merchant dispute history. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: 'search_visa_rules' and 'query_warehouse'. The naming is predictable and uniform.
With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a 'VISA Dispute Advisor'. One would expect additional tools for creating, updating, or resolving disputes to make it useful.
The tool set lacks core dispute management capabilities like creating a dispute, updating status, or listing disputes. Only rule search and merchant history are provided, leaving significant gaps.