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 | [] |
FBI Most Wanted
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 declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds the behavioral guidance to include conversation for reproduction but does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation, response format). This is a modest addition beyond annotations, earning a 3.
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 only two sentences, with the purpose stated first and the usage instruction second. No filler or redundant phrasing. It is concise and front-loaded.
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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what to send and what to include. However, the 'conversation array' could be misinterpreted since the schema type is string, and the 'context' parameter is not mentioned. These are minor gaps in an otherwise complete description.
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 explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter and implies 'message' is the report content, but 'context' is left unexplained. The description partially covers the parameters but not fully, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
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.' The verb 'Report' is specific, and the resource types are enumerated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like marketplace or toolkit_info, which serve different 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?
It provides clear context for use: when users encounter a bug, missing feature, or want to give feedback. It also instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous and there are no close alternatives among siblings.
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
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state are all separate concerns. However, `connect` and `toolkit_info` overlap somewhat in reporting connection status, and `marketplace` is a large catch-all that could be confused with a standalone platform tool.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some are single verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), some are verb_noun (`report_bug`, `show_version`), one is a noun (`marketplace`), one is noun_info (`toolkit_info`), and one mixes English with Portuguese (`fbi_most_wanted_consultar`). This inconsistency makes the set feel like a random collection rather than a coherent API.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a general utility server, but the server is named 'FBI Most Wanted' and only one tool is domain-specific. The other six are platform administration tools that do not relate to the stated purpose, making the scope confusing and the count feel inflated for a specialized server.
Completeness3/5
For the FBI Most Wanted domain, only a single lookup operation is provided, lacking features like listing all wanted persons, retrieving details, or batch searching. The platform utilities cover metadata and lifecycle operations, but there are notable gaps in the domain-specific functionality that would require agents to rely on the generic `marketplace` for deeper coverage.