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 | [] |
SINTEGRA: BA
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds the requirement to include the conversation array, which is useful context. It doesn't detail side effects or confirmation, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.
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?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and no redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple reporting tool, the description covers the main usage and the key parameter (conversation). However, it omits any description of the 'context' parameter and doesn't mention what happens after submission, leaving some gaps. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 explain parameters. It implicitly covers 'message' (the bug/feedback) and explicitly mentions 'conversation' for reproduction, but provides no explanation for the 'context' parameter. Partial compensation only.
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 tool reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but no sibling tool overlaps with this purpose, so it's unambiguous.
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 a clear context for when to use it (to report issues or send feedback) and instructs to include the conversation for reproduction, but doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it. It's adequate for a self-contained tool.
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
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Top-level tools are mostly distinct, but marketplace is a broad catch-all that overlaps with report_bug, toolkit_info, connect, and authenticate at the sub-function level. An agent could easily route an action to the wrong tool when the boundaries between marketplace's built-in operations and the standalone tools are blurry.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use bare verbs (connect, authenticate), some use nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), some use verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and one is a Portuguese verb-object phrase (sintegra_ba_consultar). The lack of a consistent pattern or language makes the set feel ad hoc.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is not excessive, but the server is titled SINTEGRA: BA while only one tool is domain-specific; the other six are generic platform utilities. The count is reasonable for a platform assistant server but feels inflated and unfocused for what the name implies.
Completeness4/5
Platform-side workflows are well covered: authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/execution/install, billing, bug reporting, version, and toolkit state are all present. For the SINTEGRA BA domain, only a single consultation tool exists, but that likely matches the core need of this query service.