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 | [] |
Sicoob MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, but reporting a bug is typically not idempotent (same report may create duplicate tickets). The description does not clarify this behavioral aspect or address side effects. Without annotation contradiction, description adds no value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, adequately concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a usage instruction. However, it could be better structured with separate sections for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how the bug report is processed, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 explains the 'conversation' parameter's purpose but provides no details for 'message' or 'context'. Parameter semantics are only partially clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are mainly financial operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is to include the conversation array for reproduction. No exclusions or context for choosing this tool over others is provided.
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
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most openfinance_* tools target clearly distinct resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories). Minor overlap exists—list_accounts returns balances and list_transactions_by_item consolidates what list_transactions provides—but the detailed descriptions distinguish them adequately.
Naming Consistency4/5
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, update_*, force_sync, search_*) with one slight deviation: openfinance_provider_status omits a verb. The non-openfinance platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) break the prefix pattern, creating two naming conventions within the same server.
Tool Count3/5
25 tools sits at the upper boundary of acceptable for a comprehensive Open Finance banking adapter, covering accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, and connection management. However, including meta-platform tools like marketplace and toolkit_info inflates the count and makes the set feel heavier than a pure banking tool surface.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core Open Finance lifecycle well: list/get accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, connection management, category correction, and provider status. Gaps include no direct new-bank connection tool (only URLs) and no investment detail endpoint beyond transactions, but agents can work around these.