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 | [] |
Unicred MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which align with the description. The description adds that conversation should be included, but does not disclose other traits like asynchronous behavior, rate limits, or response format. With annotations present, the description adds moderate value.
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 no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a key usage hint. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 purpose and a key hint about conversation. However, it lacks explanation of the 'context' parameter, what happens after reporting, and any success/failure indicators. Adequate but not fully complete.
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. It explains 'message' (implicitly the bug/feedback text) and 'conversation' (for reproduction), but does not mention 'context'. Thus, it partially adds meaning but leaves one parameter unexplained.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It is the only tool among siblings that serves this general feedback function, distinguishing it from the finance-specific and system tools.
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?
Description suggests including the conversation array for reproduction, but does not specify when to use or not use this tool, nor mention any alternatives. It provides implied usage context but no explicit 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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The openfinance_* tools are clearly separated by resource and action—accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, and connection status—so an agent can usually tell them apart. A few pairs remain confusable, notably openfinance_list_transactions vs openfinance_list_transactions_by_item and the monolithic marketplace tool overlapping with report_bug, but the detailed descriptions largely resolve the boundaries.
Naming Consistency4/5
The openfinance_* subset follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun convention (list_accounts, get_item_status, update_transaction_category), and non-openfinance tools like report_bug and show_version fit the same style. The pattern breaks with bare verbs/nouns such as connect, authenticate, marketplace, and toolkit_info, but the domain prefix makes the majority predictable.
Tool Count3/5
25 tools sits at the top of the heavy-but-manageable range, and the Open Finance resource pairs plus platform/marketplace tools each earn some place. The count feels slightly bloated because marketplace bundles many capabilities and several status/sync tools could be consolidated, but the scope is broad enough that the number is defensible.
Completeness4/5
The toolkit covers the core Open Finance surface thoroughly: accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, categories, connection lifecycle, sync, and provider health, plus marketplace and platform plumbing. Minor gaps exist—no direct connect-bank action beyond URLs, no per-transaction get endpoint, and some marketplace operations are only accessible through the single marketplace tool—but standard workflows are not dead-ended.