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 TRT9: 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 already declare the tool is idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds that conversation data is used for reproduction. However, it doesn't disclose actual side effects such as sending data or response behavior, beyond what the annotations imply.
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?
Two sentences with front-loaded main action, no redundant wording. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and key parameter but omits explanation of the optional 'context' parameter and any return/response behavior, leaving some gaps for an agent.
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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description clarifies the 'conversation' parameter's purpose and implies 'message' content, but leaves 'context' undefined, providing only partial compensation.
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 states 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.
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 second sentence instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, providing clear usage context. There are no ambiguous alternatives among the siblings, but no explicit when-not guidance is given.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate for login, connect for status, marketplace for finding/running MCPs, report_bug for feedback, show_version for version info, toolkit_info for installed tools, and the single domain tool for TRT9 queries. No overlap exists between them.
Naming Consistency2/5
Names are inconsistent: first six are single words or short verbs/nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace) with occasional underscores (report_bug, show_version), while the domain tool uses a long snake_case with a domain prefix (tribunal_trt9_processo_consultar). No consistent verb_noun pattern or style unifies the set.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic platform utilities while only one addresses the server's stated purpose (Consulta Processual). This feels like a platform server with one domain tool bolted on, slightly mismatched with the server name but still within an acceptable range.
Completeness3/5
For the domain, only one query tool exists, which may suffice for a simple lookup but lacks any additional operations (e.g., filtering, batch queries, or status checks). The platform utilities are comprehensive, but the core domain surface is minimal and might leave agents without sufficient coverage for varied consultation needs.