report_broken_serverReport that an MCP server's install, docs, or endpoint is broken. Creates a submission for editorial review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Server slug | |
| detail | Yes | What's broken (install fails, endpoint down, docs wrong, …) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behaviors. It mentions creating a submission but omits details like idempotency, rate limits, or follow-up actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple submission tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, confirmation). Could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond summarizing the detail field.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Report' and resource 'MCP server', specifying broken aspects (install, docs, endpoint) and outcome (creates submission). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_server or check_trust.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a server is broken but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor any 'when not to use' conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: checking trust, comparing servers, generating configs, fetching records, listing capabilities or loadouts, searching, planning, and reporting. No two tools overlap in purpose; even similar verbs like 'get' and 'list' are applied to different resources.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_trust, get_server, list_capabilities). The verbs are specific and descriptive, and the nouns clearly indicate the target resource or action.
14 tools is well-scoped for a server that indexes and evaluates MCP servers. The number is sufficient to cover core operations (retrieval, comparison, configuration, planning, reporting) without being overwhelming or redundant.
The tool surface covers all essential interactions: exploring servers, capabilities, loadouts, and stats; comparing and trusting; generating configs; planning toolkits; and reporting issues. The domain is fully served with no obvious missing capabilities.