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 | [] |
Banco BRB MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are present (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond them. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or what happens after submission, such as whether a confirmation is returned.
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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second providing a key usage tip. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and a key usage detail. However, it lacks explanation of the 'context' parameter and does not describe the expected response or side effects, leaving some gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that 'message' is the report text and 'conversation' should contain the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not explain the 'context' parameter, leaving it ambiguous.
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 that the tool is for reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinctly different from the sibling tools, which are mainly open finance data retrieval and management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool should be used to provide feedback or report issues, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Since there are no similar sibling tools, the lack of explicit guidance is less critical, but still a gap.
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
Most openfinance_* tools map cleanly to distinct resources and actions, and the list/get split is readable. The main risk is openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, which both return transactions and could be confused; openfinance_get_item_status vs openfinance_provider_status also sound similar, though descriptions clarify them.
Naming Consistency4/5
The openfinance_* family follows a consistent openfinance_<verb>_<noun> pattern, and platform tools mostly use simple verb_noun names. Deviations include openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, which breaks the noun pattern, and the non-prefixed platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) mixing in a second naming category.
Tool Count3/5
At 25 tools, this is at the high end of reasonable scope. The open finance data surface is genuinely broad, so most tools earn their place, but the marketplace/platform tools effectively add a second unrelated domain and push the set toward heavy.
Completeness4/5
The open finance lifecycle is well covered: connection search, sync, status, disconnect, accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, and category correction. Minor gaps exist (no single-transaction fetch, no connection update beyond force_sync), but core agent workflows do not hit dead ends.