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 | [] |
CNPJ
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive; description confirms a write operation (report) without contradiction. Adds context about conversation requirement.
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, no fluff. Front-loads purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal but adequate for a simple bug report tool. Missing description for 'context' parameter and any return/error info. Output schema absent.
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 has 0% description coverage. Description only mentions 'conversation' array, leaving 'context' and 'message' unexplained. Insufficient detail for three parameters.
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?
Clearly states 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' Differentiates from siblings which are unrelated like authenticate or cnpj_consultar.
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?
Explicitly says to include the conversation array for reproduction, guiding when to use. No alternatives given, but context is clear.
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
Disambiguation3/5
Some tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., authenticate vs connect, marketplace vs toolkit_info), but descriptions help differentiate. The domain-specific tools (cnpj_consultar, cnpj_processos) are distinct from generic utilities.
Naming Consistency2/5
Mixed naming conventions: snake_case (cnpj_consultar, cnpj_processos), camelCase (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and lowercase (authenticate, connect, marketplace). No consistent pattern.
Tool Count2/5
Only 2 of 8 tools are domain-specific (CNPJ); the other 6 are generic platform utilities (auth, connection, marketplace, etc.) that inflate the count and misalign with the server's stated purpose.
Completeness2/5
For the CNPJ domain, only consult and process search are provided. Missing CRUD operations, CPF lookup, or other Brazilian registry data, leaving significant gaps.