Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

report_issue_create

POST /report-issue — Report an issue or feedback

Submit a bug report, feedback, or question to the DC team. Optionally include a base64-encoded screenshot (PNG, JPEG, or WebP, up to 4 MB raw).

Privacy note: Screenshots and report text are sent unredacted to the DC team. Don't include passwords, payment details, or other secrets.

⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesA short description of the issue or feedback (1–4000 chars).
contextNoOptional structured debug context — anything useful for triage (last error, request payload, endpoint, etc.). Up to 32 keys.
severityNoSeverity: bug | feedback | question. Defaults to "bug".
screenshotNoOptional base64-encoded screenshot. Accepts raw base64 OR a data URL (e.g. `data:image/png;base64,...`). PNG, JPEG, or WebP only. Max 4 MB raw, clamped to 4096×4096; re-encoded server-side to strip EXIF.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description fully addresses behavioral traits. It explicitly states this is a 'WRITE operation' that mutates account data, warns that screenshots and text are sent unredacted, and details screenshot constraints (format, size, EXIF stripping). This is comprehensive.

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, with a clear header line, followed by details, privacy note, and mutation warning. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. Well-structured for quick consumption.

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 description covers usage and constraints but lacks information about what happens after submission (e.g., response format, confirmation, error handling). For a mutation tool, this is a gap. With no output schema, expecting basic success/failure feedback would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as base64 encoding details for screenshot, size limits, and data URL format. It also clarifies the 'context' parameter as 'debug context'. This adds value for the agent.

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: 'Report an issue or feedback' and 'Submit a bug report, feedback, or question'. It uses specific verbs (report/submit) and identifies the target resource (issues/feedback to DC team). No sibling differentiation needed as no other reporting tools exist.

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 explains optional features (screenshot inclusion) and provides a privacy note, offering clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but given no alternative reporting tools in siblings, the guidance is adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DC Member API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.

Resources