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 Suíça (SECO)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the requirement to include a conversation array for reproduction, which is useful but does not disclose e.g. side effects like data being sent to a server. With annotations present, this is adequate.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that perfectly communicates the tool's purpose and a key instruction. No filler words or redundant information.
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 feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and a usage hint. It could mention the context parameter or what happens after reporting, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's straightforward nature.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), and 'message' is implied as the bug/feedback text. However, the 'context' parameter is not explained at all, leaving a gap.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from unrelated siblings like authenticate or connect.
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?
The description gives explicit context for when to use the tool (for bugs, features, feedback) and even includes a usage hint about including the conversation array. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but none of the sibling tools are similar, so clear context is sufficient.
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
Disambiguation3/5
Most platform tools have clear roles, but there is overlap between connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace—all deal with connection/installation status to some degree. The single domain tool is clearly distinct, but the marketplace's broad scope creates potential confusion.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names mix English and Portuguese verbs/nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, sancoes_suica_consultar) with no consistent pattern. Some are camelCase, some lowercase, and one uses a Portuguese verb phrase.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated sanctions domain. This makes the set feel bloated for its intended purpose and dilutes the domain focus.
Completeness3/5
For the Swiss sanctions domain, only a single query tool exists—it checks names but provides no other operations like listing all sanctions or retrieving detailed entry information. The platform tools are comprehensive but irrelevant to the domain, leaving the sanctions surface minimal.