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 | [] |
Banco Central do Brasil (BCB): Valores a Receber
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, which are not contradicted. However, description does not disclose side effects (e.g., sending a ticket) or response behavior beyond the parameter hint.
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 with no redundant information, clearly actionable and structured.
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 reporting tool, description adequately covers essential usage. No output schema, but return values are likely trivial (e.g., success indicator) and not essential for invocation.
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?
Schema shows three parameters: message (required), context (default), conversation (default). Description only elaborates on conversation, leaving message and context undefined. Coverage is below 50%, requiring the model to infer their roles.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback. Distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.
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?
Implies when to use (for reporting issues) and gives specific instruction to include conversation array for reproduction. Lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions but sufficient for the context.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Most tools are generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) rather than domain-specific, and 'marketplace' explicitly mentions CPF queries which could be confused with the BCB consult tool. 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' also overlap in providing status information.
Naming Consistency2/5
The naming is highly inconsistent: most tools use English imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), while the only domain-specific tool uses a Portuguese noun phrase with underscore format (bcb_valores_receber_consultar). No clear pattern across the set.
Tool Count2/5
Seven tools is not inherently excessive, but six of them are generic platform management features unrelated to the server's stated purpose of accessing BCB values. The count is inflated with irrelevant tools, making the server poorly scoped for its intended domain.
Completeness3/5
From a domain perspective, the single BCB consult tool covers the core need for checking 'valores a receber'. However, there is no option for related operations (e.g., scheduling, detailed reports), and the included generic tools do not contribute to domain completeness. Overall, the surface is minimal but not severely incomplete for a simple query.