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 | [] |
ECAC PER: DCOMP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: the description says 'Report a bug... send feedback,' which implies each call has a side effect (submitting a report), while idempotentHint=true claims repeated calls with the same arguments produce no additional side effects. This is a serious inconsistency, and the description adds no other behavioral details such as response behavior or retry implications.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the purpose and the key reproduction requirement, earning its length.
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?
The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and a side-effecting nature, but the description only covers the conversation parameter and leaves message/context semantics undefined. The idempotency annotation conflict further undermines the agent's ability to predict behavior.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'conversation' (recent messages for reproduction), but it does not clarify the 'message' or 'context' parameters, and it calls 'conversation' an array while the schema declares it a string defaulting to '[]', creating ambiguity.
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 specific verbs and a resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This clearly identifies the tool as a user-facing reporting channel, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.
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?
It states the intended use cases directly ('bug, missing feature, or feedback') and instructs the agent to include recent messages for reproduction. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance, but the sibling set provides no close alternative, so the context is clear enough.
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
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a distinct core purpose: auth, connection status, the ECAC query, the marketplace, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. However, there's some overlap between `connect` and `toolkit_info` (both surface connection state), and `marketplace` is a multifunction blob that also covers billing, prompts, and other capabilities an agent might expect as separate tools.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a clean lowercase verb_noun pattern (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), but `ecac_perdcomp_consultar` breaks the pattern entirely—it's snake_case but in Portuguese and uses a different verb ordering. This naming mixes languages, making the set feel inconsistent even though the convention itself (utterances separated by underscores) holds.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server falls comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range. The count feels right for a platform bootstrapping an ECAC integration: one domain-specific tool plus six infrastructure/meta tools. No tool feels redundant enough to cut, though the market place tool could arguably be split.
Completeness3/5
For a read-only tax query service, the single `ecac_perdcomp_consultar` tool covers the core use case. However, there's no history, balance/credit check, or query status tool exposed at the top level, and the marketplace's generic dispatch is too broad to guarantee discovery of what the platform can really do.