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 | [] |
SEFAZ CE: Certidao de Regularidade
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?
The annotations already establish that this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds the useful behavioral note to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission or any privacy/retention implications of sending recent messages.
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 is two concise sentences with no filler. The first states the purpose, the second gives the most important usage detail, so every sentence earns its place.
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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the conversation parameter adequately. It could add what happens after submission, but that is not essential for correctly selecting and calling the 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?
The schema has 0% parameter-description coverage, so the free-text description must compensate. It helpsfully explains the 'conversation' parameter as recent messages for reproduction, but it does not clarify the 'context' parameter, and the required 'message' parameter is only implied by the overall purpose rather than explicitly defined.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: report a bug, request a missing feature, or send feedback. It clearly distinguishes itself from the listed sibling tools, none of which handle bug reporting or user feedback.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a user reports a bug, asks for a missing feature, or wants to provide feedback. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no competing sibling tool exists, so this is not a significant gap.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace search, bug reporting, certificate query, version info, and toolkit state. No two tools overlap in function, so an agent can unambiguously select the right one.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a long snake_case with verb at the end (sefaz_ce_cert_regulariedade_consultar). There is no predictable naming pattern across the set.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the count is misleading: six of the seven are generic MCP platform utilities, while only one is specific to the server's stated SEFAZ CE purpose. This makes the tool set feel bloated for a domain-specific server and under-scoped for the platform's broader capabilities.
Completeness4/5
For the stated purpose of querying SEFAZ CE certificates, the single consultation tool is sufficient and no dead ends exist. Minor gaps include lack of a separate way to check credit balance or manage certificates, but these are handled indirectly through the marketplace and toolkit_info tools, so agents can work around them.