Skip to main content
Glama

disputes.challenge

Challenge payment disputes through the Ryft MCP server by submitting required identification to contest transaction claims.

Instructions

Challenge a Ryft dispute.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler and registration for 'disputes.challenge'. It uses 'disputeTargetSchema' to validate the ID and makes a POST request to '/disputes/${id}/challenge'.
    registerTool(
      'disputes.challenge',
      'Challenge a Ryft dispute.',
      disputeTargetSchema.shape,
      async (args) => {
        const { id } = disputeTargetSchema.parse(args);
        return client.post(`/disputes/${id}/challenge`, {});
      },
    );
  • The schema used for input validation of the dispute ID for the 'disputes.challenge' tool.
    const disputeTargetSchema = z.object({
      id: z.string().min(1),
    });
Behavior2/5

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden yet fails to explain mutation semantics (irreversible?), side effects (financial holds, fee changes), or outcome indicators. 'Challenge' implies contestation but doesn't disclose the business process triggered.

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?

Extremely brief (four words) avoiding verbosity, but the lone sentence fails to earn its place by delivering minimal information beyond the tool name. Appropriately sized only in word count, not value density.

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?

Insufficient for a high-stakes financial operation. Lacks explanation of the parameter, the 'challenge' business process, return values, and prerequisites. The minimalism is inappropriate given the legal/financial weight of disputing transactions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description offers no compensation. It fails to specify that the 'id' parameter represents the dispute ID (versus transaction ID or customer ID), leaving critical semantic gaps for a single-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the action ('Challenge') and resource ('Ryft dispute') but remains procedurally vague—it doesn't specify whether this submits evidence, formally contests the dispute, or triggers a specific workflow. It nominally distinguishes from sibling 'disputes.accept' by naming the opposing action, though neither clarifies the underlying mechanism.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives like 'disputes.accept' (presumably for conceding) or 'disputes.addEvidence' (for documentation). Missing prerequisites such as required dispute status, mandatory evidence attachment, or deadlines for challenging.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bkawk/ryft-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server