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 | [] |
DETRAN MA: Multas
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 declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds context by requiring the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction, which is useful behavioral information beyond the 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then a specific usage directive. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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-reporting tool with one required parameter, the description covers the purpose and a key usage requirement. There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained, though a note on what happens after submission would add completeness.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'conversation' parameter as 'recent messages for reproduction' and implicitly describes 'message' as the bug/feedback text. However, the 'context' parameter is not mentioned, 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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and names the resources: bug, missing feature, or feedback. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives. The description states what the tool does but does not provide exclusions or comparisons.
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
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: authentication, status check, quota query, marketplace discovery, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit overview. Only minor overlap exists between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' in terms of connection status reporting, but each has a distinct primary function.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version', 'toolkit_info' use camelCase, while 'detran_ma_multas_consultar' is snake_case. Verbs vary (authenticate, connect, report, show) with some noun-only names (marketplace, toolkit_info), undermining a predictable pattern.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server's stated identity as 'DETRAN MA: Multas' clashes with the inclusion of six platform-level meta-tools and only one domain-specific tool. The count is appropriate for a generic platform server, but it feels excessive for the nominal domain focus.
Completeness2/5
For the domain of Brazilian traffic fines (DETRAN MA), only a single consult tool exists, with no support for updates, deletions, or listing distinct fine types. While platform tools cover meta-operations, the domain surface is severely underdeveloped given the server's name and purported purpose.