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 TRT2: Consulta Processual
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, meaning repeated calls should have no additional effect, and the description doesn't contradict this. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects (e.g., where feedback goes, if it creates a ticket) beyond what annotations already imply. With readOnlyHint=false Annu, the description adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, one sentence, and front-loaded with the main purpose. The instruction to include the conversation array is important and earns its place. It's efficient without wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has 3 params but only 1 required, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description covers the primary purpose and a key usage tip (including conversation). However, it doesn't explain what happens after reporting, what 'context' is for, or what makes a good 'message', so incomplete for a feedback tool.
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 for parameter meaning. It explains 'message' implicitly (the feedback content) and 'conversation' (recent messages), but 'context' is not clarified. The description adds value for 'conversation' but leaves 'context' ambiguous, so a 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: report a bug, missing feature, or feedback. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reporting issues rather than other actions like authentication or marketplace operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from a generic 'share feedback' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when users want to report issues, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. It mentions including the conversation array for reproduction, which provides some context for effective usage, but lacks exclusions.
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
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
The tools include a mix of platform management functions (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) and one domain-specific tool (tribunal_trt2_processo_consultar). While the platform tools are distinct, the 'marketplace' tool has a very broad and complex description that overlaps with 'toolkit_info' and 'connect' in terms of installation and connection status; also 'report_bug' is narrow and could be considered an action within a platform, but not clearly distinct from feedback features of other tools.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools use a simple lowercase verb or noun (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), which is somewhat consistent but lacks a clear verb_noun pattern. The domain-specific tool 'tribunal_trt2_processo_consultar' follows a completely different naming convention (domain prefix + process + verb), breaking the pattern. The verbs are also vague (authenticate, connect) and mixing verbs and nouns.
Tool Count4/5
The server has 7 tools, which is within a reasonable range. However, the tool set is very top-heavy on platform management and only has one actual domain-specific tool for the legal process consultation. For a server named 'Tribunal TRT2: Consulta Processual', the user would expect more tools related to the legal domain; the current count feels slightly over-scoped with platform tools and under-scoped for the domain.
Completeness1/5
The domain is likely about querying Brazilian labor court procesos (TRT2). However, the only domain tool is a single 'consultar' action, which is a read-only query. There are no tools for listing, filtering, updating, or managing anything related to procesos. The rest of the tools are for the MCP platform itself, not the legal domain, so the tool surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose.