Create a GitHub issue for bug reports, feature requests, or feedback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| npub | No | Required. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing. | |
| title | Yes | ||
| contact | No | ||
| category | No | feedback | |
| dpop_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or that npub is needed (though schema suggests it). Limited transparency.
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?
Single sentence, no waste. However, lacks essential details; could benefit from elaboration.
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 tool with 6 parameters and 1 required, the description is too minimal. Missing when to use, behavior, output handling (output schema exists but not mentioned).
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?
Schema description coverage is only 17% (only npub has a description). Tool description does not explain any parameters beyond the general purpose. Inconsistency between npub being described as 'Required' in schema property but not in top-level required array.
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?
Description clearly states the tool creates GitHub issues for bugs, features, or feedback. However, sibling tool 'taxsort_report_issue' likely overlaps, and no differentiation is provided.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'taxsort_report_issue' or when not to use it. Missing context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes and thorough descriptions. However, the sheer number (84) and some similarly named tools (e.g., check_balance vs check_authority_balance) could cause minor confusion for an agent.
All tools share the 'taxsort_' prefix, but the naming pattern is inconsistent: some use verb_noun (check_balance), while others use noun_noun (account_statement) or other structures. This mixed convention reduces predictability.
84 tools is excessive for typical MCP server coherence. While the domain is broad, many tools seem administrative (e.g., get_anthropic_key) and could be consolidated. The high count likely overwhelms agents.
The tool set covers the core tax classification workflow (import, classify, summarize) plus auxiliary systems (payments, credentials, coupons, notarization). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no CSV export), but overall coverage is comprehensive.