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 | [] |
Certidão TJ (Cível, Criminal e Fiscal)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds that the conversation array is used for reproduction, which provides useful context. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response behavior or potential side effects.
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 concise and front-loaded, stating the primary purpose in the first sentence and adding essential reproduction guidance in the second. No unnecessary words are used.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and highlights the key parameter for reproduction, but it omits the `context` parameter and does not clarify the conversation format. For a relatively simple tool, these gaps are noticeable but not fatal.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the `conversation` parameter but leaves `context` completely unaddressed and does not clarify the expected format of the conversation string. This partial coverage creates notable gaps.
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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It uses specific action verbs and identifies the resources, distinguishing it from unrelated sibling tools.
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 on when to use the tool, listing specific scenarios (bug reports, feature requests, feedback). It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool serves a similar function, so the guidance is adequate.
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
Disambiguation3/5
The tools serve mostly distinct purposes, but the marketplace tool is a broad catch-all that overlaps with the domain tool (can search for CPF-related MCPs) and includes many sub-actions. Additionally, connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, creating some ambiguity. Detailed descriptions help, but selection risk remains.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are all lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace), and only a few follow a verb_noun style. The domain-specific tool uses a different convention (tj_certidao_consultar). This mixed naming makes it hard to predict tool behavior from names alone.
Tool Count3/5
The 7-tool count is within a reasonable range, but the server is named for a specific domain (TJ certificates) yet devotes 6 of 7 tools to generic platform management. This creates a scope mismatch where the domain surface is a single tool and the platform tools feel out of place, though the number itself is not excessive.
Completeness2/5
The only domain tool covers the core consult operation, but there are no other certidão-related tools (e.g., list past requests, check status, or generate a specific variant). The platform tools do not address the domain's completeness, leaving significant gaps for typical certificate workflows.