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 de Crimes Eleitorais (TSE)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not contradict the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It adds the practical detail about including the conversation array for reproduction, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a ticket is created or data is sent). With annotations already covering safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second offers an essential usage detail. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 report tool, the description covers the main goal and the critical conversation parameter. However, the required 'message' parameter is not explicitly described, and 'context' is ignored. Given no output schema, some additional detail about return values or expected usage would improve completeness.
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 input schema has 3 parameters (context, message, conversation) with 0% schema description coverage. The description explicitly mentions only the 'conversation' array, leaving 'message' (the required parameter) and 'context' unexplained. While the purpose implies 'message' content, the description fails to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb ('report') with a defined resource (bug/feature/feedback). It also differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which have unrelated purposes.
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 ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and gives a specific usage instruction ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.
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
Each tool has a distinct overall purpose, but the marketplace tool is a catch-all covering search, invoke, install, prompts, and more, while authenticate and connect overlap in handling credentials and connection status. This creates some ambiguity for an agent choosing between them, especially since the domain-specific tool is the only one actually related to the server's stated purpose.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use lowercase snake_case, so there is no mixing of conventions, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), and the domain tool is a long descriptive phrase. This makes the set readable but not predictable.
Tool Count2/5
At 7 tools, the count is within a typical range, but 6 of them are generic platform utilities that do not relate to the server's stated TSE certidão domain. This bloats the tool list for a service whose actual scope is a single lookup operation, making the count feel inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
Completeness3/5
The one domain tool covers the core action of emitting a certidão, but there are no supporting operations such as verifying a certidão, checking request history, or listing available certidões. The platform tools do not contribute to the domain, so the surface is narrowly functional but lacks any lifecycle or auxiliary operations.