report_bug
Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| conversation | No | [] |
Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| conversation | No | [] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about including the conversation array but does not elaborate on post-submission effects or return values. Minimal added value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function and key input guidance. It could mention what happens after submission, but that is not essential given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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. It clarifies the 'conversation' parameter's role in reproduction, but 'context' remains unexplained, and 'message' is only inferable from the tool's purpose. Partial compensation for the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb 'Report' and resource 'bug, missing feature, or feedback'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'show_version' by its unique support/meta nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context that this is the reporting channel and explicitly instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not offer exclusions or alternatives, though siblings are unrelated so this is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The credit analysis tool is clearly distinct, but several platform tools overlap: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all deal with connection/auth status, and marketplace is a mega-tool covering many actions. This overlap could cause an agent to select the wrong utility.
Names mix English verbs (authenticate, connect), English verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese compound (credito_pf_completo_consultar). There is no consistent naming pattern across the set.
Seven tools is within a typical range, but only one tool serves the credit analysis domain; the other six are generic platform utilities. The set feels padded relative to the server's stated purpose.
The single credit tool covers the full consultation: cadastral data, score, pending issues, and history. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct balance or query history), but the marketplace can handle payment top-ups indirectly.