arbitova-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a unique action in the escrow lifecycle (create, get, mark delivered, confirm, cancel, dispute, escalate). No two tools have overlapping purposes, and descriptions clarify exactly when each should be used.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the pattern 'arbitova_<verb>_<condition>', using snake_case consistently. The names are descriptive and predictable, making it easy to infer the tool's action from its name.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is an ideal size for an escrow management server. Each tool serves a necessary function in the lifecycle without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full escrow lifecycle: creation, status retrieval, delivery marking, confirmation/cancellation, dispute opening, and escalation. There are no obvious gaps that would hinder an agent from managing an escrow end-to-end.
Average 4.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses consequence of wrong confirmation (funds auto-escalate to arbitration) and that silence is safer. Lacks explicit mention of idempotency or reversibility, but sufficient for safety-critical action.
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?
Description is longer than average but each sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisites, alternatives, consequences. Front-loaded with main action. Could condense the list of prerequisites slightly, but no wordiness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (high-stakes confirmation with verification criteria), the description thoroughly covers preconditions, alternatives, and consequences of misuse. No output schema, but return value is not critical for decision-making.
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?
Only one parameter (escrowId) with schema description. Description adds context (confirms delivery for that escrow) but does not materially extend beyond schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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?
Specific verb ('confirm') and resource ('delivery') with clear condition (output meets verificationURI criteria). Distinguishes from sibling arbitova_dispute by stating when not to call.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly lists 4 prerequisites before calling, provides clear when-not-to-use (any missing/wrong), and names alternative tool (arbitova_dispute). Also advises on escalation path if uncertain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully discloses the action (cancellation with refund), preconditions (caller, time, state), and a recommendation to check status. It could mention error behavior if conditions not met, but overall transparency is strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences: action, conditions, and advice. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple cancellation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: behavior, preconditions, and a recommended prior step. No critical information is missing for an agent to use it correctly.
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?
The input schema already covers the single parameter (escrowId) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 tool cancels an escrow when delivery is not marked after the deadline, refunding the buyer in USDC. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dispute or escalate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly specifies when to use the tool: only by the buyer, after deliveryDeadline has passed, and when escrow is in CREATED state. It also advises to verify conditions via get_escrow first, providing practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully describes the returned data and its meaning. It implies a read-only operation without side effects. A higher score would require explicit statement of read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences plus a list of statuses. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what fields are returned, status meanings, and usage guidance. It is complete.
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 has 100% coverage with one parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 specifies the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'on-chain state of an escrow' with a clear list of fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling action tools (cancel, confirm, dispute) by being a read-only query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'check whether delivery has been marked before fetching the payload' and 'verify the reviewDeadline before deciding to confirm or dispute'. Provides decision-making context and references sibling tools implicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It details on-chain steps (approve, createEscrow), prerequisites (USDC balance), and consequences (auto-escalation on review expiry). It also clarifies that silence protects the buyer, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait.
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 one coherent paragraph without wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and flows logically through parameters and consequences. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (on-chain escrow creation) and lack of output schema, the description completely covers the process, prerequisites, and outcomes. Sibling tools handle subsequent actions, so this tool's context is sufficiently self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the practical impact of deliveryWindowHours and reviewWindowHours (auto-escalation), and emphasizes that verificationURI must be publicly fetchable, which is not fully captured in the schema's description.
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 tool's verb ('locks USDC') and resource ('Arbitova EscrowV1 smart contract'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle cancellation, confirmation, dispute, etc. It is specific about the buyer's action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (buyer initiating escrow) and provides default values for windows. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives among siblings, though the action is unique enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that contract hashes URI on-chain and arbiter fetches it during disputes. Warns about broken URL counting as non-delivery. Missing details on return value or permissions beyond seller.
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?
Concise but slightly long; every sentence adds value. Well-structured: purpose first, then constraints and prerequisites. No fluff, but could be slightly tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple action tool. Covers preconditions, stability, and dispute resolution. Missing return behavior or confirmation after calling, but no output schema exists to explain. References sibling tool create_escrow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains deliveryPayloadURI must be stable, publicly fetchable, and on-chain hashed. Describes escrowId as from create_escrow. Schema coverage is 100%, but description enriches each parameter.
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?
Clearly states the tool is called by the seller after completing work and uploading a deliverable. Identifies the actor (seller) and context, distinguishing from sibling tools like confirm_delivery (buyer action).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to call (after work done, upload stable URL) and when NOT to call (before work done, temporary URL). Provides prerequisites and warns about consequences of broken URL.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, description adds valuable context: disputes trigger AI arbitration that evaluates delivery and can split funds, and reason must cite criteria. Lacks details on side effects like reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words, efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and the AI arbitration mechanism, leaving no major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond schema: reason must cite specific criteria from verificationURI with an example, clarifying format and requirements.
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?
Clearly states the tool opens a dispute for delivery issues, specifies triggers like missing or incorrect delivery, and distinguishes from siblings like confirm_delivery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises calling when arbitova_confirm_delivery feels uncertain, and mentions both buyer or seller can open, providing clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. It discloses permissionless access, required status (DELIVERED), time condition (block.timestamp > reviewDeadline), and effect (status change to DISPUTED). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, front-loaded with action and constraints, every sentence adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (on-chain state change), the description covers preconditions, permissible callers, consequences, and a prerequisite check. No output schema, but the state change is clearly explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter described. The description adds context about the parameter's role (escalate escrow) and suggests verifying with another function, but the meaning is already clear from the schema.
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: escalate a DELIVERED escrow to DISPUTED after the review window expires. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the condition of expiration, separating it from other operations like cancel, confirm, or dispute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (buyer went silent past reviewDeadline), who can call (any address), and what it achieves (unblocks seller, routes to arbitration). Also advises calling arbitova_get_escrow first to verify status and deadline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Arbitova MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jiayuanliang0716-max/Arbitova/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jiayuanliang0716-max/Arbitova)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Arbitova MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jiayuanliang0716-max/Arbitova/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jiayuanliang0716-max/Arbitova)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/jiayuanliang0716-max/Arbitova'

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