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 | [] |
Antecedentes (Polícia Civil)
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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate these. It adds context about including the conversation array for reproduction, but doesn't disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation). No contradiction found.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It wastes no words and delivers the core instruction clearly.
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 tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and one key parameter. However, it leaves 'message' and 'context' semantics vague and doesn't mention expected outcomes or side effects beyond what annotations imply.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning for the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') but leaves the required 'message' and optional 'context' unexplained, providing insufficient guidance.
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 with a specific verb ('Report') and resource (bug/feature/feedback). It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace'.
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 provides a clear when-to-use guideline ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and instructs the agent to include the conversation array. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though siblings are unrelated.
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
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The single domain tool (antecedentes_policia_civil_consultar) is clearly distinct from the platform utility tools, which have well-separated purposes (authentication, connection status, marketplace search/invoke, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state). No two tools appear to perform the same action.
Naming Consistency2/5
The domain tool uses a long Portuguese noun-phrase verb (antecedentes_policia_civil_consultar) while all other tools use short English imperative or noun phrases (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). This mixture of languages and naming patterns is inconsistent and makes the set feel disjointed.
Tool Count2/5
Seven tools is within a typical range, but the set is heavily weighted toward generic MCP platform tools that have nothing to do with the server's stated domain (criminal background checks). Only one tool actually serves the domain, making the count feel inflated and unfocused for the apparent purpose.
Completeness3/5
The platform tools are comprehensive, covering authentication, connection, marketplace discovery, invocation, bug reporting, versioning, and toolkit state. However, the domain surface is severely thin—only a single query operation with no supporting options (e.g., validation, different certificate types, or status tracking). For a server named 'Antecedentes', this leaves notable domain gaps.