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 cover safety traits (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only). The description adds that the conversation array is used for reproduction, but it does not detail side effects, response behavior, or rate limits, which is acceptable given the 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary details. Efficient and easy to scan.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple feedback tool but lacks details on required message content, expected response, or how the report is processed. Given no output schema, more context would help but is not critical.
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?
With no schema descriptions, the description must compensate. It explains the 'conversation' parameter's role but leaves 'message' (required) and 'context' unexplained. It also calls conversation an 'array' while the schema types it as a string, which may cause confusion.
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 purpose: reporting a bug, missing feature, or feedback. It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource types, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reporting issues and provides guidance to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though none are needed given the distinct sibling tools.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authenticate, connect, ibama_debitos_consultar, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info are all separate functions. The only minor overlap is that marketplace can also run tools like ibama_debitos_consultar, but its description makes clear it's a catalog/discovery mechanism.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are simple verbs (authenticate, connect), some are noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a long Portuguese snake_case name (ibama_debitos_consultar). This mixing of languages and patterns creates a lack of predictability.
The count of 7 is reasonable, but the majority (six of seven) are generic platform maintenance tools rather than domain-specific ones. For a server allegedly focused on IBAMA debts, the tool set feels bloated with unrelated utilities, though the count itself is not excessive.
For the sole domain function of issuing environmental debt certificates, ibama_debitos_consultar covers the core query but makes no provision for other related operations like validating a certificate, listing historical consultations, or managing credits directly. The platform tools fill some gaps (authentication, payment links) but the domain surface is incomplete.