report_content【需要登录】举报违规内容 / 用户。targetType 决定举报对象，reason 是原因。审核后台会处理。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | No | 补充说明，可选 | |
| reason | Yes | 原因：spam 垃圾 | abuse 辱骂 | porn 色情 | illegal 违法 | other 其他 | |
| targetId | Yes | 举报对象 id | |
| targetType | Yes | 举报对象类型 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it states login is required and that the audit backend will process the report, implying no immediate action. This is meaningful for a mutation tool with no destructive hint and no existing auth/flow information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates login requirement, the action, and the key dispatch logic without waste. It is concise and every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderate-complexity action with full schema coverage, the description plus schema covers required inputs and behavior sufficiently. It does not describe response format, but 'audit backend will handle' implies asynchronous processing, reducing the need for return-value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter details are fully documented. The description reiterates targetType and reason roles but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: reporting violation content or users, and clarifies that targetType determines the target. This distinguishes it from related actions like report_dispatch and block_user, even without naming them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use this to report inappropriate content or users, and the backend will review. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like report_dispatch for dispatch-specific reports.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.
The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.
137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.
The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.