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 | [] |
Banrisul MCP
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 provide safety traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds minor context by mentioning the conversation array, but does not disclose any additional behavioral details beyond what the annotations indicate.
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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key action and required data are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to understand quickly.
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 feedback tool, the description covers the basic purpose and a required element (conversation). However, there is no output schema or explanation of the response, which is a gap. It is minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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%. The description only explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array'), leaving 'context' and 'message' unexplained. While 'message' is somewhat self-evident, 'context' lacks any description, resulting in incomplete parameter 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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are mostly openfinance or authentication) by being a general feedback mechanism.
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 explicitly instructs to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool and what data to include. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough.
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
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action (e.g., accounts, transactions, loans, investments, credit card bills, connection status, provider status, sync, marketplace, authentication). Descriptions are highly detailed, making overlaps virtually nonexistent. The only potential overlap (openfinance_list_transactions vs. openfinance_list_transactions_by_item) is resolved by the latter being a consolidated analysis tool for a whole connection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern. Open Finance tools are uniformly prefixed with 'openfinance_' and follow a clear verb_noun structure (e.g., openfinance_list_accounts, openfinance_get_account_balance). Non-Open-Finance tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) also use simple, predictable verb names. No mix of conventions.
Tool Count4/5
With 25 tools, the count is on the higher side but justified by the comprehensive scope covering Open Finance banking data, marketplace, and utility functions. The domain requires many endpoints (accounts, transactions, loans, investments, credit card bills, sync, etc.). A slight redundancy exists (e.g., two transaction listing tools), but they serve distinct use cases. The count is well-scoped for the complexity.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides excellent read coverage for accounts, transactions, loans, investments, and credit cards, plus write support for category updates and sync forcing. Missing are tools for directly creating or deleting connections (though search provides connect_url and disconnect exists) and for managing MCPs beyond the marketplace. No critical gaps that would cause agent failures, as the core data retrieval and category correction are covered. Minor gaps exist in write operations and connection lifecycle management.