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 | [] |
Meta Ads (Facebook & Instagram)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, but does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation, confirmation). No contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds value: it states the purpose and the key reproduction instruction.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the tool's purpose and the most important usage nuance (conversation array), while the schema handles required/optional parameter structure.
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 only explains the conversation parameter ('recent messages for reproduction') and leaves the required 'message' and optional 'context' parameters semantically unexplained.
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 a specific verb ('Report') with clear resources ('bug, missing feature, or feedback'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling Meta Ads tools, which are all advertising-related, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 context for when to use the tool: to report bugs, missing features, or send feedback. It also gives a concrete instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.
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
B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools are near-identical variants of the same action, with only a `[Flattened action]` marker distinguishing e.g. the four `meta_ads_campaign_write_*` tools and the three `meta_ads_creative_write_*` tools. The reporting tools also overlap: `meta_ads_ads`, `meta_ads_realtime`, `meta_ads_today`, and `meta_ads_roas` all return spend/performance data, making selection genuinely ambiguous. Unrelated platform tools like `marketplace` and `toolkit_info` are mixed in, further muddying what the server is for.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most Meta Ads tools follow a readable `meta_ads_<resource>_<action>` snake_case convention, and write actions are reasonably predictable. However, there are inconsistencies: `meta_ads_ads` vs `meta_ads_audience`, `meta_ads_business_list` vs `meta_ads_business_accounts` vs `meta_ads_list_accounts`, and `meta_ads_adset_delete` vs the `meta_ads_adset_write_*` grouping. The unbranded platform tools (`connect`, `report_bug`, `show_version`) also break the pattern.
Tool Count2/5
44 tools is far above the recommended range and pushes the server into unwieldy territory. The count is inflated because flattened actions were expanded into separate tools: the campaign write tool appears four times, audience write twice, adset create/update twice, creative tools three times, media upload three times, and business/pages actions once per variant. A consolidated action-based design could reduce real surface area to roughly 15-20 tools.
Completeness4/5
The core Meta Ads lifecycle is well covered: campaigns, ad sets, creatives/ads, custom audiences, media upload, business managers, pages, and reporting all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent destinations. The main gaps are no direct `list_ad_sets` tool, no `remove_users` for audiences, and an apparent reference to a nonexistent `meta_ads_media` tool for listing uploaded media. These are noticeable but usually workaroundable.