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 | [] |
CND Imóvel Rural
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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the reproduction guidance but does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., whether data is sent, any confirmation behavior, or side effects). With annotations present, the bar is lower, yet the description still adds limited 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback'), and each sentence provides necessary information without filler.
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 reporting tool, the description covers the core purpose and the key parameter guidance. It does not explain the optional 'context' parameter, and there is no output schema, but the missing details are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 carries the burden. It clarifies that 'message' is the bug/feedback text and 'conversation' should convey recent messages for reproduction. However, the 'context' parameter remains unexplained, so the compensation is partial.
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 reports a bug, missing feature, or feedback. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('bug') and naturally distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.
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?
Clear context is given: use this tool to report bugs, missing features, or feedback. It also provides a practical instruction ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives. Siblings are different enough that no further disambiguation is needed.
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 domain tool 'cnd_imovel_rural_consultar' is clearly distinct, but the platform tools overlap: 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, and 'marketplace' is a catch-all for searching, invoking, and managing MCPs. Descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries between these utility tools are not always sharp.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names mix styles: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), and a long Portuguese snake_case name (cnd_imovel_rural_consultar). There is no consistent pattern, and the language mix (English vs Portuguese) adds to the inconsistency.
Tool Count3/5
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but only one tool serves the server's stated domain ('CND Imóvel Rural'). The other six are generic platform utilities, making the set feel bloated with meta-tools rather than focused on the certificate service.
Completeness4/5
For the domain of issuing a negative certificate for a rural property, the single 'cnd_imovel_rural_consultar' tool covers the core operation. There are no obvious missing domain operations (e.g., no need for update or delete). However, the platform tools are unrelated to the domain, which slightly detracts from the overall completeness.