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 | [] |
XP MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description contradicts the annotation 'idempotentHint: true' because reporting a bug typically creates a new record each time, not idempotent. No additional behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence front-loads purpose. Could improve structure but no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing explanation of return values, side effects, or post-report behavior. Annotation contradiction further reduces completeness.
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 description must compensate. It only mentions the conversation parameter weakly, leaving 'message' and 'context' unexplained.
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 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback,' specifying the verb and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are mainly openfinance operations or utilities.
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 that this tool is for reporting issues or feedback. It hints at including conversation array, but does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or mention alternatives.
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
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The Open Finance tools are granular (e.g., list vs get vs force_sync for different resources), and the marketplace, authentication, and utility tools do not overlap. No two tools could be easily confused.
Naming Consistency4/5
The Open Finance tools consistently use the 'openfinance_' prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_accounts, get_balance). Other tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) use simple verb names, which is a minor deviation but still clear and predictable.
Tool Count4/5
25 tools is on the higher end, but the server covers a broad domain (marketplace + comprehensive Open Finance operations). Each tool serves a specific function, and the count is justified by the depth of functionality.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides full lifecycle coverage for the Open Finance domain: list, get, sync, update, transactions, categories, investments, loans, credit cards, and connections. The marketplace tool is also feature-rich. No obvious gaps for the intended purpose.