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 | [] |
PicPay MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, potentially idempotent operation. The description adds that it includes conversation for reproduction, but does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation, logging). Thus, it adds some but not substantial behavioral context.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the purpose and ends with the key guidance on conversation. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description is largely adequate. It covers the main purpose and provides a crucial usage hint. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or what happens after submission, which could be useful.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description adds meaning to the 'conversation' parameter by specifying its role in reproduction. However, 'context' and 'message' parameters are not explained. This partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It specifies the action (report) and the resources (bug, missing feature, feedback). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are primarily financial data operations or authentication.
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: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This gives explicit usage guidance. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use, the sibling tools are unrelated, so there is no ambiguity about when to use this tool.
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, especially within the openfinance_* family where each targets a different resource or action. A few minor overlaps exist—connect vs toolkit_info both report connection state, and marketplace internally includes report_bug while a top-level report_bug also exists—but these are unlikely to cause serious misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent snake_case prefix with mostly verb_noun patterns like list_accounts, get_item_status, and force_sync. The general tools are also snake_case but mix verbs (connect, authenticate) with nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and openfinance_provider_status breaks the verb_noun pattern slightly.
Tool Count3/5
25 tools is at the upper boundary of a heavy surface, but the Open Finance domain genuinely spans connections, accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, categories, and provider health. It feels dense rather than bloated, though a few general utilities like show_version and report_bug could arguably be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
The Open Finance surface is well covered: connection management, account/balance/transaction retrieval, credit card bills, loans, investments, category correction, force sync, and provider status are all present. Minor gaps exist—such as no direct investment position detail endpoint beyond the portfolio list, and payments/initiation are out of scope—but agents can accomplish the core read-only financial workflows without dead ends.