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 | [] |
Certidão MPF
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds a useful behavioral note about including the conversation array for reproduction, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like what happens after submission or any side effects beyond the annotation. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add the key parameter instruction. No redundant words or repetition of structured data.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple reporting tool with good annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description covers the essential use case and a critical parameter. It lacks explicit mention of what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation), but given no output schema and the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but does not mention 'message' or 'context' by name. However, the overall purpose makes 'message' obvious, and 'context' is optional with a default. It partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are about authentication, marketplace, etc.
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 (for reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback) and provides an instruction on including the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling set.
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
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace is a catalog/execution platform, and mpf_certidao_consultar is the domain operation. Confusion could arise between marketplace's invoke functionality and the direct tool, and between connect and toolkit_info, but detailed descriptions mitigate ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools are single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), some use snake_case with verbs (report_bug, show_version), and others are noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, and mpf_certidao_consultar stands out as a domain-specific name among generic platform names.
Tool Count3/5
With 7 tools, the count is not inherently excessive, but the server is named 'Certidão MPF' and only one tool actually relates to that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the toolset feel bloated for its apparent purpose. A more focused server would have just the certidão tool or additional related domain tools.
Completeness3/5
For the specific operation of querying a certidão, the single tool mpf_certidao_consultar is complete as it provides the necessary functionality. However, the server's broader purpose is unclear—it includes platform-level tools that do not serve a unified domain, so there are potential gaps if a user expects related certidão operations or management features beyond a simple query.