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 | [] |
SENATRAN: Validar CNH
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 non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it sends feedback and includes reproduction data, but does not detail side effects or outcomes. Adequate given 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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and provides a key usage hint. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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, it covers essential context: what it does and a key parameter hint. It doesn't mention the role of 'context', but that is a minor omission. Overall 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?
The description explains the purpose of the 'conversation' parameter (for reproduction) but leaves 'message' and 'context' implicit. With zero schema descriptions, this partial coverage is moderate.
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.' It is distinct from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) which serve unrelated functions.
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 explicitly indicates when to use (for reporting bugs/feedback) and gives a specific usage instruction ('Include the conversation array...'). It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident.
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
Disambiguation4/5
The CNH query tool is clearly distinct from the platform utilities, and each utility has a generally separate role. The main ambiguity is between connect, authenticate, and toolkit_info, which all revolve around connection/status but still have enough detail to distinguish them in most cases.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), some are underscore verb phrases (report_bug, show_version), one is a bare marketplace noun, and the domain tool uses an awkward Portuguese-style mixed name (senatran_validar_cnh_consultar). There is no predictable naming convention.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is not an unreasonable count, but only one tool actually serves the stated SENATRAN CNH purpose while the other six are generic platform, marketplace, connection, version, and toolkit utilities. The set feels padded with platform infrastructure rather than being scoped to the CNH validation domain.
Completeness4/5
The domain is essentially consult/validate CNH, and the single domain tool does cover that core need. Some auxiliary CNH features such as quota/balance visibility or batch validation are not present, but they are partly handled by the surrounding platform tools, so there is no critical dead end.