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 | [] |
RecargaPay 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 indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that this is a reporting action and mentions including conversation for reproduction, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or what happens after submission. 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a specific instruction for a key parameter. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the most important parameter. The optional 'context' parameter is not explained, but its optional nature and default value reduce the impact of this omission.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'conversation' parameter's role for reproduction and implying that 'message' contains the report text. However, the 'context' parameter is left unexplained, leaving a partial semantic gap.
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 a specific verb ('Report') and defines the resources: bug, missing feature, and feedback. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are focused on financial operations or authentication, making the unique purpose obvious.
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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the intended use is unambiguous.
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
The openfinance_* tools mostly split cleanly by resource (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections) and action (list/get/update/force_sync), so an agent can usually pick the right one. The main ambiguity is between openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, and between openfinance_get_item_status and openfinance_provider_status, but the detailed descriptions clarify those boundaries.
Naming Consistency3/5
The dominant openfinance_<verb>_<noun> pattern is clear and all names are snake_case. However, the generic tools break the convention entirely (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item uses an awkward extra preposition, so the naming pattern is not fully uniform.
Tool Count3/5
At exactly 25 tools, this is at the heavy end of the acceptable range. The openfinance family is comprehensive and each tool has a defined purpose, but several platform-level utilities (authenticate, connect, show_version, toolkit_info, report_bug) are administrative extras rather than core financial capabilities.
Completeness4/5
For a read-heavy Open Finance aggregation server, coverage is strong: connections, accounts, balances, transactions, bills, loans, investments, categories, sync, and status checks are all present. Write support is mostly limited to category updates plus connect/disconnect/sync, so agents cannot initiate payments or modify financial records, but that appears outside the stated scope.