Fetch a Stripe dispute by ID to check evidence_details.due_by, the submission deadline. Use it before adding evidence so late submissions are avoided.
Retrieve a dispute by ID. evidence_details.due_by is the deadline; evidence submitted after it is wasted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dispute | Yes | The ID of the dispute. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful domain context beyond the annotations: that evidence_details.due_by is the submission deadline and late evidence is wasted — a behavioral/operational fact not present in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, the core operation front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers a high-value domain warning with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-param read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is essentially sufficient, and the due_by warning adds helpful context. It stops short of 5 only because it says nothing about the returned dispute structure or error behavior for an invalid ID.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the dispute ID. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (dispute) with the scoping qualifier 'by ID', which implicitly separates it from stripe_disputes_list. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling retrieve/update tools, but the operation is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by ID' implies the precondition (you must already have a dispute ID), which is the natural selector versus stripe_disputes_list. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement or mention of alternatives such as the list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.