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 | [] |
Dock MCP
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotent and non-destructive hints. The description adds that the tool expects a conversation array for reproduction, but does not explain the effect (e.g., creates a ticket, notifies developers) or clarify the idempotency behavior. It is adequate but lacks depth.
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?
Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides a key usage instruction. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with essential 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?
For a simple reporting tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is functional but lacks details on what happens after reporting (e.g., response, ticket creation). It could be more complete given the lack of schema descriptions.
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 must compensate. It clarifies the role of the 'conversation' parameter ('recent messages for reproduction') but does not explain 'context' or 'message' beyond the overall purpose. This provides some added value but is incomplete.
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 bugs, missing features, or sends feedback. It is distinct from sibling tools which are primarily openfinance operations, so the purpose is unambiguous.
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 instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, providing a specific usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, but given the sibling list, the usage context is 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
A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most openfinance_ tools target distinct resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories), so the core surface is clearly separated. However, several pairs could be confused at first glance: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item (both return transactions but at different scopes), get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills (bill detail vs list of bills), and get_account_balance vs get_accounts_detail (balance snapshot vs full account object). The detailed descriptions help, but the overlap is nontrivial.
Naming Consistency4/5
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent pattern (list_, get_, update_, search_, force_sync, provider_status, disconnect_bank), all using snake_case with a clear domain prefix. However, the general platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) have no such prefix or consistent verb_noun pattern, mixing the convention. The finance subset is strong, but the overall set isn't uniform.
Tool Count3/5
At 25 tools, this is at the upper boundary of acceptable for a broad financial domain covering connections, accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, categories, and provider health. Each tool adds real capability, so it doesn't feel bloated, but it's heavier than typical and pushes the borderline between well-scoped and too many.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the Open Finance lifecycle thoroughly: connection management (list, reconnect, force sync, disconnect, provider status), account/balance reads, transaction listing (with filters, pagination, rich detail), credit card bills (closed and open/debt), loans, investments, category management, and a connector search. Obvious gaps like a tool for creating connections are handled via widget URLs rather than an API call, so the coverage feels adequate. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool for updating a connection's credentials beyond reconnect URLs), but nothing that would block core workflows.