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 TRT5: Consulta Processual
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds little beyond the annotations. It mentions including the conversation array for reproduction, which gives some context about expected input, but it does not disclose side effects, confirmation, or post-submission behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It directly states the purpose and gives a key instruction without any redundant or verbose content. The structure is clean and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected format of the 'conversation' field, what 'context' should contain, or any constraints on the input. It also omits any information about the return value or confirmation of submission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines parameters (context, message, conversation) but the description provides no explanation for any of them. It mentions 'conversation array' but the schema declares conversation as a string, which could cause confusion. No parameter is clarified, leaving the user to guess their meaning and format.
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: reporting a bug, missing feature, or sending feedback. It is a specific verb-resource combination and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify scenarios such as encountering an error or needing to submit feedback, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferred contexts.
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
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tribunal lookup tool is clearly distinct, and most platform tools have individual roles. However, marketplace is a broad multifunction tool that includes its own report_bug, connect, list_tools, and invoke behaviors, and connect/toolkit_info both report connection status, so an agent may need to read carefully to avoid picking the wrong entry point.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names like report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info are clear snake_case, but the set mixes bare verbs (authenticate, connect), bare nouns (marketplace), and a long Portuguese domain name (tribunal_trt5_processo_consultar) that reverses the usual verb_noun order. The style is readable but not consistently patterned.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count overall, but only one tool actually addresses the named Tribunal TRT5 purpose. The other six are generic platform and toolkit-management tools, so the toolset feels padded for a server that presents itself as a Brazilian court-case consultation service.
Completeness3/5
The single tribunal tool likely supports a basic case consultation, but the domain surface is thin: there is no clear support for different consultation modes, expanded case detail endpoints, or follow-up actions such as downloading or saving process information. Minor context writing around the main query could be enough for read-only use, but the missing tool shapes are notable.