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 | [] |
Mandados de Prisão (CNJ)
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 provide idempotentHint=true, readOnly=false, and destructive=false. The description adds that including the conversation array helps reproduction, which is a minor behavioral hint. It does not contradict annotations, but it supplies limited extra context beyond what annotations already convey.
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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and provide immediate actionable guidance about the conversation parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits details like return value, the exact format of the conversation string, and the effect of the idempotentHint. It is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps in fully understanding tool behavior.
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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions the 'conversation array' and implies 'message' content, but it does not clarify the structure of 'conversation' (e.g., JSON string), the role of 'context', or the expected content of the 'message' field. This under-specification leaves agents guessing about parameter semantics.
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 action: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb with a defined resource and scope, and it distinguishes the tool from the listed unrelated siblings.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool ('Report a bug...'), but it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives. The instruction to 'include the conversation array' offers usage guidance, but the 'when vs alternatives' aspect remains unspoken.
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
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but authenticate and connect both relate to authentication/connection status, which could confuse an agent. The single domain tool (mandados_prisao_consultar) is clearly distinct from the platform utilities.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names are lowercase with underscores but mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), verb+noun compounds (report_bug, show_version), and nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). The Portuguese name mandados_prisao_consultar breaks the English pattern, resulting in an inconsistent though readable set.
Tool Count2/5
With 7 tools, only one relates to the server's stated domain of arrest warrants; the other six are generic MCP platform utilities. This makes the count inappropriate as the platform tools dilute the server's focus and purpose.
Completeness2/5
The server offers only a single domain operation (mandados_prisao_consultar) and lacks any other warrant-related operations such as listing, detailed lookups, or historical searches. The platform tools are comprehensive for infrastructure but do not contribute to the domain, leaving the core purpose severely incomplete.