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 | [] |
Tribunal TRT20: Consulta Processual
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds limited behavioral context. It instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, but doesn't describe the outcome, side effects, or any additional context beyond what annotations already convey.
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, with two clear sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and a key usage instruction. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 description is adequate for a simple bug-reporting tool. It covers what to do and mentions the conversation array, but lacks details about output, authentication requirements, or post-submission behavior. Given the tool's low complexity, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.
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?
The description explains the 'conversation' parameter (for reproduction) but does not clarify the 'message' or 'context' parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only partially compensates, leaving two of three parameters undefined.
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 action: reporting a bug, missing feature, or feedback. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) by focusing on issue reporting.
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 implies when to use (when encountering a bug, missing feature, or needing to send feedback) but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or compare alternatives. The context is clear enough for most scenarios.
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
Most platform tools are distinct (bug reporting, version, toolkit state), but authenticate and connect overlap around auth/connection status, and marketplace is a sprawling multi-purpose tool that also covers installation, search, billing, and prompts, making its boundaries fuzzy. The single domain tool, tribunal_trt20_processo_consultar, is clearly unique but is buried among generic platform utilities.
Naming Consistency2/5
Names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun underscores (report_bug, show_version), and one Portuguese domain name (tribunal_trt20_processo_consultar) that reverses the typical object-verb order. There is no consistent pattern across the set.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but six of them are generic MCP platform utilities while only one is relevant to the server's stated purpose of TRT20 process consultation. The count is not extreme, but the scope feels imbalanced for a specialized tribunal server.
Completeness3/5
For a read-only process consultation use case, the single tribunal tool may be sufficient, but the server provides no supporting domain operations beyond that one query. The impressive breadth of marketplace and platform tools does not compensate for the lack of any additional case-related functionality.