Skip to main content
Glama
tribeunal

Tribeunal Decision-Making Platform

Official

Get dispute

tribeunal_get_dispute
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one dispute you are party to and see its current parties, value, rounds, rulings, appeal deadlines, standing ruling, and final status in a single non-blocking call.

Instructions

Read one dispute you are a party to, as it stands now: the parties and their labels, the disputed value, every round with its case, panel, state, ruling and appeal deadline, the standing ruling and whether the dispute is final. This is the one-shot read and never blocks; to wait for a ruling, or to learn whether you may appeal, use tribeunal_await_ruling. Find a disputeUuid with tribeunal_list_disputes. The claim text is not in this document: it opens the description of the round-0 case, read with tribeunal_get_case and round0CaseUuid. ruling is 0 (void), 1 (claimant) or 2 (respondent), and null while a round is undecided; standing is null until a round has closed. Refused: 404 dispute_not_found (unknown, or not a party: identical by design). Returns {disputeUuid, round0CaseUuid, origin, panel, enforcement, consent, bindingBasis, viewerRole, value, valueCapMinor, claimant, respondent, arbiter, rulingIndex, rounds: [{round, caseUuid, caseUrl, state, panelMode, jurorCount, minVotes, panelOpensAt, endsAt, appealWindowSeconds, filedBy, decisionUuid, ruling, closedAt, appealDeadline}], final: {at, ruling, decisionUuid}, standing: {ruling, basisRound, basisDecisionUuid}, receiptFiling, receipts, createdAt, honesty}. Proves: The case exists, is private, and the value is ≤ cap. Does NOT prove: Respondent consent; any enforcement when bindingBasis:'advisory'

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
disputeUuidYesThe dispute's uuid (disputeUuid from tribeunal_open_dispute, tribeunal_list_disputes or a dispute.opened webhook) — not a case uuid.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.3.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds substantial non-structured context: the 404 dispute_not_found behavior where unknown and not-a-party are deliberately indistinguishable, the null semantics of ruling and standing, and a Proves/Does NOT prove contract (no consent, no enforcement under bindingBasis:'advisory').

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and routing sentence before the dense return-shape enumeration. It is long, but with no output schema every listed field earns its place; the only soft cost is density that could be split into a more scannable structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of describing the return object, the ruling/standing code semantics, the failure mode, and the proof boundary. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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% and the schema already documents the uuid format and that it is not a case uuid, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by naming the concrete sources (list_disputes, open_dispute, webhook) and reinforcing the cross-tool lookup path, adding meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope ('Read one dispute you are a party to, as it stands now') and enumerates the returned content, then explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings await_ruling, list_disputes, and get_case. An agent can pick this apart from the 49 siblings without opening a schema.

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 this is the 'one-shot read and never blocks,' routes waiting/appeal-eligibility to tribeunal_await_ruling, and tells the agent how to obtain the disputeUuid via tribeunal_list_disputes. When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all named.

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