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 | [] |
Caixa Tem MCP
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail that the conversation array is needed for reproduction, which is useful context beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no superfluous words. Every sentence serves a distinct role.
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?
The tool is simple with no output schema. The description covers the main usage and one key parameter behavior. However, it lacks details on the expected format of the conversation parameter (stringified JSON) and the context parameter, and does not mention the response behavior.
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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the 'conversation' parameter ('include ... for reproduction') but does not add meaning for 'context' or 'message'. This is partial compensation but not comprehensive.
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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., openfinance tools) which are primarily financial operations.
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 when to use (when reporting issues or feedback) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. No exclusions or comparative guidance is offered.
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
Disambiguation3/5
The openfinance_* tools are mostly distinct, but several have overlapping boundaries: openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, openfinance_get_item_status vs openfinance_provider_status, and openfinance_list_accounts carrying balance vs openfinance_get_account_balance. The platform-level tools also blur somewhat: marketplace, toolkit_info, and connect all touch installed or available services.
Naming Consistency3/5
The openfinance_* group follows a consistent list/get/update verb pattern in snake_case, but platform-level tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info break that convention. The set is readable, but it is split between two clearly different naming styles.
Tool Count3/5
At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end, and several are platform/MCP-management helpers rather than core banking capabilities. The count is not absurd for a broad Open Finance + marketplace adapter, but it feels more cluttered than a focused financial data toolset should be.
Completeness4/5
The Open Finance surface is thorough: accounts, transactions, balances, credit card bills, loans, investments, connection lifecycle, sync, provider status, and category correction are all covered. The main gaps are the absence of a direct connect/create action (only URLs are returned) and no write operations beyond category updates, but for a read-centric financial data adapter this is close to complete.