report_bug
Idempotent
Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| conversation | No | [] |
Astrea (Aurum)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about what to include (conversation array) and the types of feedback accepted. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentences: first states purpose, second provides critical usage hint. Every word is informative and no waste. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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?
For a simple bug report tool with annotations, the description covers purpose and key usage hint. It could mention the expected outcome (e.g., ticket created) since no output schema exists, but this is a minor omission.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'conversation' should contain recent messages for reproduction, and 'message' is the bug report text. However, the 'context' parameter is left unexplained, leaving a gap.
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 reports bugs, missing features, or feedback. 'Report a bug' is a specific action on a specific resource type, distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are about legal case management.
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 explicitly tells the agent to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which guides proper usage. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools, but given no similar sibling, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tool groups share identical descriptions because they were flattened from parameterized actions (the five astrea_processos_* tools, astrea_agenda_global/por_cliente, and astrea_financeiro_despesas/honorarios). The names and [Flattened action] markers help, but an agent relying on descriptions can easily pick the wrong variant or think the tools are interchangeable.
Naming Consistency2/5
The astrea_ prefix gives some coherence, but the pattern is inconsistent: singular vs. plural objects (astrea_processo_criar vs. astrea_processos_list), verb-only names (astrea_encerrar), double-verb names (astrea_etiquetar_aplicar), and six unrelated English platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) mixed in. It is readable but not predictable enough for a reliable convention.
Tool Count2/5
35 tools is well into the too-heavy range, especially because several of them are flattened actions that duplicate one another's descriptions and could have been single parameterized tools. The set is further bloated by platform-level tools like marketplace, authenticate, and connect that are unrelated to the Astrea legal domain.
Completeness3/5
The core process lifecycle is fairly well covered: create, edit, search, list, count, close, tag, and financial summaries exist. However, there are notable gaps: no task listing, no standalone client create/update/delete, no document list/delete, and no appointment update tool, which leaves several common workflows incomplete.