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 TRF
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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds context about including the conversation array for reproduction, which is a behavioral nuance. However, it does not disclose other side effects like data transmission or ticket creation, but the annotation coverage reasonably covers the safety profile.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and then gives a specific usage instruction. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.
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?
The tool is simple with no output schema, and the description covers the core action and an important input guideline. It doesn't mention expected response or error handling, but for a bug-report tool, the essential context is present. The annotation hints (idempotent, not destructive) further round out the picture.
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's purpose ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') and implicitly clarifies message as the report content. However, the 'context' parameter remains unexplained, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.
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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are unrelated (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), and includes an actionable instruction about including the conversation array.
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 for when to use the tool (bug reports, feature requests, feedback) and gives a specific guideline: include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but since siblings are unrelated, the intended usage is unambiguous.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection/status information, and `marketplace` is an overloaded catch-all covering search, invoke, install, and billing, making its boundaries fuzzy. The detailed descriptions help differentiate, but some confusion is possible.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese domain-specific name (trf_certidao_consultar). No clear pattern unifies the set, mixing English/Portuguese and different naming conventions.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the set mixes generic platform utilities (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) with a single domain-specific tool, making the count feel inflated for the stated purpose of the server (Certidão TRF). The count itself is not extreme, but the inclusion of unrelated infrastructure tools is questionable.
Completeness2/5
The domain appears to be querying Brazilian federal court certificates, but only one tool (`trf_certidao_consultar`) handles that. There is no way to manage past queries, retrieve documents, list available certificate types, or handle any other part of the certificate lifecycle. The remaining tools are about MCP platform management, not the domain, leaving significant gaps.