[Shared] File a bug report for MoltAd platform support. Attach context.requestId from failed API responses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| actual | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| expected | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| severity | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| reproduction | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses a tip about attaching context.requestId, but does not explain the side effects of filing a bug report (e.g., whether it creates a ticket, notifies support, or is reversible). This is a significant gap for a tool with no safety annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word adds value. The tip about context.requestId is a succinct, actionable detail.
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?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain the purpose of most fields, the expected behavior of the tool, or the outcome. Only a single usage hint is provided.
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 0%, and the description only adds meaning to the context.requestId field. The other 8 parameters (title, description, severity, etc.) are left unexplained, so the description does little to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'File' and resource 'bug report for MoltAd platform support,' which is specific. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ask_help, though 'bug report' implies a distinct use case.
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 provides clear context: use this when filing a bug report, and specifically attach context.requestId from failed API responses. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the scenario is clear.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping or misleading purposes: buy_campaign and buy_placement are aliases of create_campaign, list_placement actually creates a placement, and get_attribution/get_campaign both provide campaign stats. The report_* tools are distinct but similarly named, increasing selection risk.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern, but there are notable deviations: buy_campaign/buy_placement use 'buy' instead of 'create', list_placement is a creator not a lister, and simple nouns like 'wallet' and 'whoami' break the convention.
At 31 tools, the server feels heavy. Several tools are redundant aliases (buy_campaign, buy_placement) or could be consolidated (multiple report_* and list_* variants), making the surface unnecessarily large for the ad marketplace domain.
The core lifecycle is covered: campaign/placement creation, delivery, reporting, attribution, refunds, and cashouts. However, there are gaps like no update_campaign, no true list_placements, and no get_placement, leaving some workflows incomplete.
