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 TRT8: 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 indicate this is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the instruction to include conversation history for reproduction, but it does not explain what happens after submission or add meaningful behavioral context beyond the obvious 'report' action.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives one important usage hint about conversation data.
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?
For a simple bug-reporting tool, the description explains the primary purpose and reproduction guidance, but it does not describe how 'message' and 'context' should be used, nor does an output schema compensate for that. It is functional but has clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies the conversation parameter. The required 'message' field and optional 'context' field remain unexplained, so the description compensates very little for the missing schema-level descriptions.
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 feedback. This verb+resource framing makes it distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and toolkit_info.
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?
It explicitly identifies the situations to use the tool: bug reports, missing features, and feedback. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the use cases are clear and direct.
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
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several generic platform tools overlap in purpose: authenticate and connect both deal with credentials/status, while connect and toolkit_info both report connection state. The marketplace tool is overloaded with dozens of sub-actions, making it hard to distinguish from other tools at a glance.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names mix patterns: some are verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and the domain-specific tool uses a long composite (tribunal_trt8_processo_consultar). No clear convention is followed consistently across the set.
Tool Count2/5
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but only one is related to the server's stated purpose (Tribunal TRT8 consultation). The other six are generic MCP platform utilities that could apply to any server, making the toolset poorly scoped for its domain.
Completeness3/5
The single consultation tool covers the basic query need, but there are no supporting domain tools (e.g., case list, search filter, or multi-query operations). The generic tools do not address domain-specific gaps, so the surface feels incomplete for a legal consultation service.