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 | [] |
Regularidade de Transportadora ANTT
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safety characteristics (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds the guidance about including the conversation array but does not disclose what happens after submission (e.g., ticket creation, confirmation). This adds some value beyond annotations but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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 two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately follow with a usage instruction. No filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It states what the tool does and how to use it. A minor gap is not explaining whether a confirmation or response is returned, but this is not critical for a report-submission tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 explains the 'conversation' parameter's purpose (for reproduction) but leaves 'message' and 'context' ambiguous beyond their names. Since it adds some meaning for one parameter but not all, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 resources ('bug, missing feature, or send feedback'). It is distinct from the unrelated sibling tools such as 'authenticate' and 'connect', so there is no ambiguity about when to select this tool.
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 provides explicit use cases (bug, missing feature, feedback) and instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, so clear context is provided without needing exclusions.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The single domain tool (antt_transportadora_consultar) is clearly distinct from the platform utilities. However, connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status information, creating slight overlap. The other tools serve separate purposes (auth, marketplace, bug reporting, version).
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are inconsistent in style: the domain tool uses a long snake_case prefix, while the platform tools use short verbs (authenticate, connect), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), or verb_noun (report_bug, show_version). No clear pattern ties them together.
Tool Count3/5
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but the composition is unbalanced—only one tool directly serves the ANTT domain while the other six are generic platform/management tools. The set feels like a standard wrapper with a single domain functionality tacked on.
Completeness4/5
For the stated purpose of querying ANTT carrier regularity, the single consult tool covers the essential operation (by CPF, CNPJ, or RNTRC). It lacks any supplementary domain actions, but the core query is fully addressed. The platform tools fill typical admin needs, so no critical gaps for the primary use case.