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 | [] |
Sanções Canadá (SEMA)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description adds practical behavioral guidance by instructing to include the conversation array for reproduction. No contradiction exists, and the reporting action is clearly conveyed.
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: first states the purpose, second gives a specific instruction. No redundant information, well front-loaded.
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 tool with good annotations, the description covers the main purpose and usage. It could mention the expected outcome (e.g., ticket created), but that is not critical for a bug-report tool.
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 explicitly mentions the conversation parameter and its purpose, but does not describe the 'context' parameter and only implies that 'message' is the report text. Partial compensation only.
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 uses specific verb 'report' and identifies targets: bug, missing feature, or feedback. It clearly differs from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies when to use it: for bugs, missing features, or feedback. It also instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, providing clear context.
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
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
The marketplace tool is a catch-all that overlaps with report_bug (which it also mentions it can do), connect, and toolkit_info in terms of status and management. The single domain-specific tool, sancoes_canada_consultar, is clearly distinct from the platform utilities, but the utility tools have unclear boundaries among themselves.
Naming Consistency2/5
Names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and snake_case (report_bug, show_version, sancoes_canada_consultar). The Portuguese domain tool breaks the otherwise English naming convention, and there is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic platform utilities (auth, connection, marketplace, bug reporting, version, state) while only one serves the Canada sanctions domain. The scope feels split between a platform admin toolkit and a specific data service, making the count less coherent for the server's stated purpose.
Completeness2/5
The domain surface is extremely thin: only a single lookup operation for Canada sanctions, with no additional query types, listing options, or batch operations. The other tools address platform lifecycle, not the sanctions domain, leaving obvious gaps for a compliance-focused server (e.g., different sanction lists, detailed results, watchlists).