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 | [] |
JUCESP: Ficha Cadastral Completa
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lowered. It adds the useful behavioral instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, but doesn't reveal what happens after submission (e.g., ticket creation, response) or any prerequisites.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the purpose and key usage note. Every word serves a purpose and there is no redundant filler.
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 feedback tool, the description covers the main purpose and reproductions, but it leaves the required message and optional context undefined, and misdescribes the conversation type. The lack of output-schema documentation is not covered either, though it may not be critical.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions the conversation parameter and calls it an 'array' while the schema defines it as a string (default '[]'). The required message parameter and optional context parameter are not explained.
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 states 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback', clearly defining the tool's action and accepted inputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, none of which handle feedback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives specified. However, the description clearly implies the tool is the feedback/reporting channel given the absence of other relevant siblings, and it instructs to include conversation for reproduction.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools are mostly distinct: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all relate to connection/status but with different focuses. However, marketplace is a meta-tool that overlaps with the server's purpose (it can invoke other MCPs, including possibly similar ones), and report_bug/show_version are generic utilities. The main domain tool, jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar, is clearly distinct, but the presence of marketplace creates ambiguity about whether to use it or the native tool.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar), others are single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). There's no consistent verb_noun pattern; the main tool is descriptive but the rest are generic and don't follow a clear convention.
Tool Count3/5
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but the set is bloated with meta-tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) that are not specific to the JUCESP domain. The actual domain-specific tool is just one, which feels thin for a server named 'JUCESP: Ficha Cadastral Completa'. The count is borderline: not too many, but the scope is diluted.
Completeness2/5
The server's stated purpose is to provide a complete company registration record (ficha cadastral completa), but it only offers a single query tool (jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar). There are no tools for related operations like listing companies, validating data, or handling multiple query types (e.g., by CNPJ, NIRE, or name are all in one tool, but no pagination or batch). The rest of the tools are platform utilities, not domain coverage, so the domain surface is severely incomplete.