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 | [] |
MPT AP e PA: Certidão Negativa de Feitos
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations by advising the inclusion of the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful behavioral guidance. Annotations already declare idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description does not contradict them.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 reporting tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what to include (conversation) and the tool's purpose. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.
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?
The input schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It mentions the conversation parameter but does not explain 'message' or 'context'. This adds partial value but leaves the required 'message' parameter under-specified.
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 tool's purpose with specific verbs (report, send) and resources (bug, missing feature, feedback). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate and marketplace, which are unrelated.
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 clearly implies usage for reporting issues or feedback, which is distinct from the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it lacks a full exclusion clause.
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
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have clearly separate jobs (login, status, search, consult, version), but connect and toolkit_info both report connection/installation state, and marketplace internally mentions report_bug while report_bug is also a standalone tool. These overlaps create some ambiguity, though descriptions are detailed enough to mostly distinguish them.
Naming Consistency2/5
The naming follows no consistent convention: authenticate/connect are bare verbs, report_bug/show_version use verb_noun, toolkit_info/marketplace are noun-based, and the domain tool is a Portuguese-style mixed name. This makes the set feel inconsistent and harder to predict.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools is within a reasonable range and none are redundant enough to cut. However, only one tool is domain-specific for the certificate lookup, while the rest are generic platform utilities, making the count feel slightly inflated relative to the server's stated purpose.
Completeness4/5
The core certificate query is covered, along with authentication, connection status, and feedback/version utilities. There are no obvious dead ends for a read-only consultation workflow, though there is no history, export, or multi-certificate variant, which are minor gaps.