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 declare readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds a behavioral instruction about including the conversation array for reproduction, but doesn't disclose other side effects or response behavior. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and specific guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations, the description covers the core purpose and one key parameter, but omits details about return values and the other two parameters. It is adequate for a basic report tool but leaves gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the purpose of the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but does not describe 'message' or 'context'. This partial compensation earns a mid score.
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 function with a specific verb ('Report') and targets (bug, missing feature, feedback), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (reporting bugs/features/feedback) without explicitly naming alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions but the purpose itself serves as a sufficient usage guideline given the unrelated sibling set.
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 distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace finds/runs MCPs, peti_trabalho_infantil_consultar queries PETI data, etc. However, connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, which could cause minor confusion.
Tool names mix styles: some are simple verbs (connect, authenticate), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a hyphenated branded name (peti_trabalho_infantil_consultar), and one is a pure noun (marketplace). The pattern is not uniform, though still readable.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable and within typical bounds. However, the server is branded as 'PETI (Trabalho Infantil)' yet only one tool directly relates to that domain, making the platform tools feel slightly excessive for the apparent purpose.
For the sole PETI-specific purpose, consulting a person's status by CPF/NIS is covered, but there are no additional operations like historical queries or batch checks. The platform management tools are comprehensive, but they are unrelated to the core domain, creating a sense of patchwork coverage.