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 TRT4: Consulta Processual
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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the conversation array aids reproduction, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like data being sent to developers or the exact behavior of the operation beyond reporting.
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 concise, two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition or filler.
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 with three parameters and no output schema. The description gives a clear purpose but leaves gaps in parameter semantics and behavioral details, making it only partially complete for an agent to use correctly without additional assumptions.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions the conversation array and implies the message is the report content, but does not clarify the 'context' parameter or the relationship between 'message' and 'conversation'. This is insufficient for correctly filling parameters.
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 specifies the tool's purpose: reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies the resource (bugs/missing features/feedback), distinguishing it from unrelated siblings.
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 implies when to use the tool (to submit a bug report or feedback) and provides a practical guideline ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool is similar, so clear context suffices.
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
Disambiguation2/5
The core tribunal tool is distinct, but several platform tools overlap: marketplace also covers connection status, installs, billing, and bug reporting, blurring boundaries with connect, toolkit_info, and report_bug. authenticate and connect also have overlapping auth/connection responsibilities, so an agent could easily pick the wrong tool.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names are readable and mostly lowercase/underscore style, but the pattern is mixed: single verbs like authenticate/connect, noun-only marketplace, verb_noun like report_bug/show_version, noun_noun like toolkit_info, and a long Portuguese domain-specific name. There is no fully consistent convention across the set.
Tool Count2/5
Seven tools is a reasonable raw count, but six of them are generic MCP platform management tools while only one serves the server's stated Tribunal TRT4 purpose. This is an inappropriate scope: the platform tooling crowds out the actual domain functionality.
Completeness3/5
The tribunal domain surface is essentially one consult operation, which may cover a simple single-lookup workflow but offers no variants for different search inputs or result navigation. The platform meta-tools add breadth, but they do not fill domain-specific gaps; if the intended use case is broader than a single consultation, the surface is thin.