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 | [] |
Rico MCP
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations show idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral details (e.g., what happens after submission, required permissions). Given the annotations, the description's value is minimal.
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 and usage hint. No wasted words.
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 bug report tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and a key parameter tip. It lacks return value info but is adequate.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the conversation parameter's purpose for reproduction, but leaves context and message undefined. Partial coverage earns a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports bugs, missing features, or feedback. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly OpenFinance operations, making it the only general feedback tool.
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 advises including the conversation array for reproduction, giving context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or 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 have clearly distinct purposes, especially the openfinance_* family, but there is some overlap: openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item both cover transaction listing (though the latter is aggregated by connection), and openfinance_get_account_balance vs openfinance_list_accounts both return balance info. Descriptions are detailed enough to guide selection, so ambiguity is limited but present.
Naming Consistency4/5
The 19 openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_balance, force_sync). The remaining generic tools (connect, authenticate, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) don't share the prefix but use clear verb-style names. Two conventions exist, but within each group naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count3/5
25 tools is at the high end but supports the dual scope: platform management (connect, auth, marketplace) and comprehensive Open Finance data access (19 tools). The count feels slightly heavy, especially with the massive marketplace tool that bundles many actions into one, but it's justified by the breadth of the financial domain.
Completeness4/5
The Open Finance surface is quite complete: accounts, balances, transactions, bills, loans, investments, categories, connections, sync, and provider status are all covered. Missing minor operations like updating categories is present, but there is no obvious gap like missing update/delete for transactions (not applicable). The platform side is minimal but sufficient for auth and info.