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 | [] |
Garantia Safra
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 indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, providing some behavioral context, but does not disclose response behavior or side effects beyond what annotations cover.
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, front-loaded with purpose and a single key instruction. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives a clear purpose and one parameter hint but omits explanation of the 'context' parameter, the string vs array mismatch for conversation, and any response/error expectations. Given no output schema, these gaps remain for an agent.
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?
The description explains the 'conversation' parameter ('recent messages for reproduction') and implies 'message' holds the bug description, but leaves 'context' unexplained. It also calls conversation an 'array' while the schema defines it as a string, causing potential confusion. With 0% schema coverage, partial compensation is provided.
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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and identifies the resource as 'a bug, missing feature, or send feedback,' clearly distinguishing it from 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?
It provides clear context that this tool is for bug/feedback submissions, but does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives or name them. The usage is implied by the purpose, but no exclusions are given.
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
Each tool has a distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, Garantia Safra query, marketplace, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit info. Minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info, but they are still distinguishable.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: most tools use English lowercase with underscores (authenticate, connect, report_bug), but one uses Portuguese (garantia_safra_consultar), and compound names vary (toolkit_info vs show_version). The mixed language and naming styles break any clear pattern.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the server's purpose is muddled. Only one tool is domain-specific (Garantia Safra consultation), while the rest are generic platform utilities (marketplace, auth, reporting), making the count feel padded and unfocused.
Completeness2/5
For a server named Garantia Safra, only a single consult operation is provided, lacking any other domain-relevant actions. The remaining tools are about platform management rather than the domain, leaving obvious gaps if an agent expects to manage Garantia Safra data beyond a simple lookup.