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 | [] |
PEP Estendida (Parentescos)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not disclose response behavior or side effects, which would be helpful.
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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a key usage instruction. Very efficient.
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?
The tool is simple, but the description leaves parameter semantics incomplete and provides no information about return values or side effects. It covers the core purpose and the critical conversation parameter, but not enough for full understanding.
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 ('Include the conversation array with recent messages'), while leaving 'message' and 'context' undocumented. The meaning of 'message' is implied by the purpose, but not explicitly mapped.
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 a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated (authenticate, marketplace, etc.).
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 purpose is clear enough to imply when to use it (whenever reporting a bug or providing feedback). It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tools are so distinct that no additional guidance is needed.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: auth handles login, connect reports connection status, marketplace manages the MCP catalog, pep_parentescos_consultar performs the domain query, and the rest are utility/feedback/version tools. However, connect and toolkit_info both provide connection/status information, which could cause an agent to select the wrong one.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming style is mixed: some tools are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a different convention (pep_parentescos_consultar). Although all are lowercase with underscores, the lack of a consistent verb/noun pattern reduces predictability.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the server's declared domain (PEP parentescos) is covered by only one tool; the rest are platform-level utilities (auth, marketplace, version, etc.). This makes the tool count feel inflated relative to the domain purpose, though it is not extreme.
Completeness4/5
The domain tool provides the core capability (PEP/relationship check via CPF) and is backed by platform tools for authentication, payment, and status. There are no obvious dead ends, though there is no consult history or batch operation, which would be minor enhancements.