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 | [] |
Tribunal TJSC: Processo
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds one behavioral instruction—to include the conversation array for reproduction—but does not elaborate on side effects or outcomes beyond that.
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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key instruction without any redundant words. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.
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 and lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the necessary context, including the critical instruction to include conversation. It could be slightly more explicit about expected results, but overall it is complete for its purpose.
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?
The schema defines three parameters with no descriptions. The description only clarifies the purpose of the 'conversation' parameter, leaving 'message' and 'context' unexplained. This provides partial semantic coverage, but significant gaps remain.
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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for bug reports and feedback but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others. It lacks conditions or exclusions, providing only implicit guidance on when it should be invoked.
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
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most platform tools are individually distinct (authenticate vs connect vs report_bug), but marketplace is an overloaded mega-tool containing many sub-actions (search, invoke, install, list_tools, subscription, prompt library) that overlaps with toolkit_info and connect. The single domain tool is clearly different, but the boundary between marketplace's introspection features and the other status/connection tools is fuzzy.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming follows no coherent pattern: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), snake_case compound nouns (show_version, toolkit_info), a camelCase verb (report_bug), and a long Portuguese snake_case domain tool (tribunal_tjsc_processo_consultar). The mix of languages and naming styles makes the set feel chaotic.
Tool Count2/5
Seven tools is a reasonable number overall, but only one of them (tribunal_tjsc_processo_consultar) matches the server's stated purpose. The other six are platform/meta tools that would be more appropriate in a general MCP platform server, making the count inappropriate for a 'Tribunal TJSC' domain-focused server.
Completeness3/5
For the apparent domain of consulting TJSC processes, the lone tribunal_tjsc_processo_consultar tool provides a core query operation, but there are no related operations like listing processes, getting detailed segments, or handling multiple consultation types. The platform tools do not fill this gap; they address a different domain entirely.