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 | [] |
Restituição IRPF
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds guidance to include the conversation array for reproduction, but it does not disclose return values or request/response behavior, which is a gap.
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 consists of two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides a key usage 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?
Given no output schema, the description does not mention expected return values or confirmation behavior. It also leaves the 'context' parameter undocumented. However, for a simple tool with annotations covering safety, it covers the main purpose and one parameter reasonably well.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning by clarifying that 'conversation' is an array of recent messages and implies 'message' is the bug/feedback text, but the 'context' parameter remains entirely unexplained.
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' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, restituicao_irpf_consultar, show_version, and toolkit_info.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use (reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback), and the instruction to include the conversation array adds useful usage direction. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.
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
A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct: restituicao_irpf_consultar is the only domain-specific tool, and the platform utilities (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) each serve a unique purpose. However, authenticate and connect both relate to connection/auth status, creating slight overlap.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names follow no single convention: some are verbs (connect, authenticate, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses Portuguese snake_case (restituicao_irpf_consultar). The mixed styles are readable but inconsistent.
Tool Count4/5
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable and falls within the ideal range. However, most tools are generic platform utilities that could arguably be separated from the domain-specific IRPF service, but the total is still well-scoped.
Completeness4/5
The core domain operation—consulting an IRPF refund status—is fully covered by restituicao_irpf_consultar. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no batch query or history retrieval), but the essential use case is complete. The platform tools add ecosystem coverage.