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 | [] |
CAR (Cadastro Ambiental Rural)
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. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the need for the conversation array for reproduction purposes. However, it does not detail post-submission behavior or any other side effects beyond what annotations imply. This is acceptable but not rich.
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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word earns its place. No unnecessary detail.
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?
The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and annotations are present. The description covers the main purpose and the key conversation parameter, but the undocumented 'context' parameter and lack of any guidance on response or side effects leave gaps. It is adequate for a simple reporting tool but not fully complete.
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 for the three parameters. It mentions the conversation array and implicitly covers the message, but it completely ignores the 'context' parameter. This is insufficient coverage for an undocumented schema.
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.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) which serve unrelated functions.
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 gives clear context on how to use the tool by instructing to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the usage context is reasonably clear.
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
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
The tool set is a confusing mix of generic platform operations (marketplace, connect, toolkit_info, report_bug, show_version, authenticate) and one domain-specific tool (car_ambiental_rural_consultar). Several platform tools have overlapping or unclear boundaries: marketplace also lists installed tools, overlapping with toolkit_info; authenticate and connect both deal with authentication status. The single CAR tool stands out as unrelated to the rest, making it hard for an agent to know which tool to pick for a given task.
Naming Consistency1/5
Tool naming is highly inconsistent: mixed languages (English 'authenticate', Portuguese 'car_ambiental_rural_consultar'), mixed casing (camelCase 'authenticate', 'marketplace' versus snake_case 'car_ambiental_rural_consultar', and multi-word compounds 'show_version', 'toolkit_info', 'report_bug'). There is no discernible verb_noun pattern or consistent style across the set.
Tool Count2/5
While 7 tools is a reasonable count for a typical server, this server is named 'CAR' but only one of the seven tools actually relates to CAR. The other six are generic platform administration tools that would be expected in a completely different server (e.g., an MCP.AI toolkit management server). The count is thus inappropriate for the server's stated domain, as the majority of tools are out of place.
Completeness2/5
For a server ostensibly about CAR (Cadastro Ambiental Rural), the only domain tool is a single consult operation. There is no coverage for other plausible CAR workflows (e.g., listing properties, updating data, or exporting information). The remaining platform tools are unrelated to CAR, so the domain surface is severely incomplete. Even if the intended scope is solely 'consult,' the presence of many unrelated tools makes the completeness of the set as a whole poor.