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 | [] |
iFood
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about including conversation array for reproduction but no additional behavioral details beyond what annotations offer.
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 deliver the core purpose and a critical usage hint (include conversation array) with no wasted words.
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?
No output schema is provided. The description covers basic functionality but omits what happens after reporting (e.g., response, confirmation). For a simple feedback tool, this may be adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only elaborates on the 'conversation' parameter. It does not explain 'message' (required) or 'context', leaving agents to infer their meaning from names alone.
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 explicitly states the tool reports a bug, missing feature, or feedback, distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are unrelated (e.g., authenticate, ifood_*).
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (reporting issues or feedback) but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, though no similar sibling exists.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each iFood-specific tool targets a distinct resource (catalog, availability, financial summary, store, order detail, order list, transactions). The generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are also distinct. The only slight overlap is between connect and authenticate, but their descriptions clearly separate connection status from token-based login.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names are all snake_case but follow mixed patterns. The iFood tools use a consistent 'ifood_vendas_' prefix followed by nouns or noun phrases (cardapio, disponibilidade, financeiro_resumo, pedido_detalhe). Platform tools use imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug) or descriptive names (toolkit_info). No uniform verb_noun convention exists across the set.
Tool Count3/5
13 tools is within a reasonable range, but 6 of them (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are generic platform utilities unrelated to iFood. This makes the server feel like a mixed bag rather than a focused iFood integration, reducing appropriateness for the server's stated purpose.
Completeness3/5
The iFood tools cover read-only workflows: catalog, availability, financial summary, store data, order listing, order detail, and financial transactions. However, there are no write operations (e.g., update menu, cancel order) and no search/filter capabilities beyond basic period-based listing. Core read operations are covered, but the surface is incomplete for full lifecycle management.