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 | [] |
Receita Federal PF
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 provide idempotentHint:true and destructiveHint:false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the instruction to include conversation for reproduction, which is helpful, but does not explain outcome, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations.
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-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. It earns its place by adding the reproduction instruction.
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 bug-report tool with annotations, the description is adequate but gaps remain: 'context' parameter is undocumented, conversation type mismatch is not clarified, and no indication of expected response. These gaps reduce completeness.
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 description must compensate. It covers 'conversation' and 'message' partially, but calls 'conversation' an array while the schema declares it as a string (default '[]'). 'context' is left unexplained, introducing potential invocation errors.
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?
Description states 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback' with specific verbs and resource. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which serve unrelated purposes.
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 (when reporting issues), but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, so usage is implied rather than explicit.
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
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, CPF query, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between any of the tools.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are single verbs (connect, authenticate), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), one is a noun phrase (toolkit_info), and one mixes Portuguese and English in an unusual order (receita_pf_consultar). The lack of a clear pattern hurts predictability.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count for this server, which appears to be a general MCP platform toolkit with a single domain-specific CPF query tool. The count is neither too thin nor bloated, though the mix of platform admin tools with one domain tool is slightly unusual.
Completeness2/5
For a server named 'Receita Federal PF', the only actual domain operation is a single CPF status consultation. There are no other tax-related operations (e.g., CNPJ queries, tax debt checks, or receipt management), leaving significant gaps for anyone expecting a comprehensive Receita Federal integration. The platform admin tools are complete, but they don't fulfill the apparent domain purpose.