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 PE: NFC-e
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 already mark the tool as idempotent, non-destructive, and not read-only. The description adds value by instructing to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.
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 sentences, immediately states the purpose, and provides the key instruction about the conversation array. No fluff or redundant phrasing.
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 reporting tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main action and one critical parameter. It could be more complete by explaining the 'context' parameter or any follow-up behavior, but given the simplicity, it is largely sufficient.
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 explains the conversation parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages'), which clarifies its purpose. However, 'context' and 'message' are not described; 'message' is implied as the report content, but 'context' remains undefined. This partial compensation yields a middle score.
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 function: report a bug, missing feature, or feedback. It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('bug/feature/feedback'), and is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve different 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?
It provides clear context on when to use this tool (to report issues or give feedback) and mentions including the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but given the unrelated siblings, the usage context is fairly clear.
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
Disambiguation2/5
The `marketplace` tool is a single name hiding 10+ operations (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, cancel, prompts), forcing intent-matching through argument parsing rather than distinct tools—the exact disambiguation failure mode. Meanwhile `connect`, `authenticate`, and `toolkit_info` blur the boundary between 'auth,' 'status,' and 'toolkit state,' so an agent could plausibly hit the wrong one for a connection check. Only `sefaz_pe_nfce_consultar` and `show_version` have crisp, unambiguous responsibilities.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a snake_case, verb-leading pattern (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), which is good. But `marketplace` and `toolkit_info` are noun-y fragments that give no hint of their action, and `sefaz_pe_nfce_consultar` mixes PT-BR acronyms with the underscore pattern, breaking the otherwise English verb-first convention. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic—there's no camelCase or random naming.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools sits right in the middle of the ideal 3–15 range and is well-scoped for a platform utility server. The only knock is that this is deceptive: the marketplace tool should fragment into 8+ tools, which would push the true surface to ~15. As presented, though, the count itself is reasonable and navigable.
Completeness3/5
The platform side is decently covered—auth, connection status, version, toolkit info, and bug reporting form a coherent operational loop. But the actual domain the server is named for (SEFAZ PE: NFC-e) is a single `sefaz_pe_nfce_consultar` tool with no related operations (e.g., no detail-by-chave view, no DANFE/PDF, no correlate/validate flows), and the marketplace embeds prompt management that feels bolted on. It works for a one-shot look-up but nothing more.