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 | [] |
Sintegra CCC
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 provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, setting a safe profile. The description adds the requirement to include conversation for reproduction but doesn't disclose what happens after submission (e.g., ticket creation, response). 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?
Two short sentences that front-load the purpose and include a key usage instruction. No unnecessary words.
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 doesn't cover the 'context' parameter or the expected response/return value (no output schema). The conversation array/string mismatch adds ambiguity, but the core purpose and reproduction guidance are clear.
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 description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'conversation' parameter as needing recent messages for reproduction, but leaves 'context' unexplained. 'message' is self-evident. The description refers to an 'array' while the schema type is string, potentially confusing.
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.' This uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, which have different roles.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (reporting bugs/features/feedback) and includes a specific instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool serves this purpose, so guidance is sufficient.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status information, and authenticate overlaps with connect around authentication flow. The marketplace tool is a catch-all with many sub-actions, but as a named tool it is unique.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are mixed: single verbs (authenticate, connect), noun tools (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun in English (report_bug, show_version), and one Portuguese verb_noun (sintegra_ccc_consultar). This inconsistency makes the tool list feel chaotic and hard to predict.
Tool Count2/5
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server is named 'Sintegra CCC' and only one tool (sintegra_ccc_consultar) actually provides the core domain capability. The other six are generic MCP.AI platform utilities, making the tool set feel misaligned with the server's stated purpose.
Completeness2/5
For a Sintegra CCC server, the surface is severely lacking: only one consultation tool exists, with no additional domain operations or auxiliary features. While the platform-management tools are complete for their own domain, they do not contribute to the stated Sintegra CCC purpose, leaving the domain coverage nearly empty.