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 | [] |
Bradescard MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond these annotations, but does not contradict them. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not add significant behavioral detail.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a key usage tip. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required 'message' parameter, the optional 'context', or the return value of the tool. The conversation tip is helpful but insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions the 'conversation' parameter, omitting explanation for 'message' (required) and 'context'. It does not clarify the format or purpose of these parameters, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and the tool is distinct from all sibling tools which are primarily openfinance or system utilities.
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 provides clear guidance on usage: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It implies when to use this tool (for issue reporting), but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though there are no alternative tools for this purpose.
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
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are highly distinct, targeting different resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections). However, openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item both return transaction data with different scopes, which could cause misselection. Also openfinance_get_item_status vs openfinance_provider_status are distinct but similar in name.
Naming Consistency5/5
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_credit_card_bill, force_sync). Generic tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are also clearly named and consistent within their own domain. No mixed conventions or chaotic naming.
Tool Count4/5
At 25 tools, the server is on the heavier side (borderline of the 16-25 range) but each tool serves a clear purpose in the open finance domain, covering multiple resource types and auxiliary functions like marketplace and status. A slight trim could be made (e.g., merging some list/get pairs), but it's not excessive.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the full read lifecycle for accounts, transactions, bills, loans, and investments, plus connection management (list, disconnect, force sync) and category updates. Minor gaps like lack of direct deletion for financial records are acceptable since those are not typical operations. The generic tools (marketplace, auth, version) round out the toolkit.