Maindex Expert Memory Service

system_report_bug

Report a bug to the Maindex maintainers. Provide a clear title, description, severity, and category. Include reproduction steps, error messages, and context when available. Do not include sensitive information. On success the tool returns only an internal ticket number (no URLs).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "severity": "<severity>",
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "system_report_bug"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Short bug title
`agent_id`	No	Identifier of the reporting agent
`category`	Yes	Bug category: data_integrity, api_error, performance, auth, mcp_protocol, search, ui, other
`hostname`	No	Hostname of the reporting machine
`metadata`	No	Arbitrary key-value context
`severity`	Yes	Bug severity: critical, high, medium, low
`session_id`	No	MCP session ID
`description`	Yes	Detailed description of the bug
`environment`	No	Environment: development, staging, production
`action_called`	No	MCP tool or API action that triggered the bug
`error_message`	No	Raw error message or stack trace
`actual_behavior`	No	What actually happened
`expected_behavior`	No	What should have happened
`steps_to_reproduce`	No	Step-by-step reproduction instructions

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	Submission status when not successful
`message`	No	Human-readable status message when not successful
`report_id`	No	Internal ticket number only on success (no URLs)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: reports go to maintainers, sensitive information must be excluded, and success yields only an internal ticket number with no URLs. It does not address duplicate-report handling or any rate limits, which is what keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then content requirements, then a privacy constraint, then the return-value caveat. Nothing is redundant with the schema and nothing can be cut without losing guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 14-parameter write tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, required content, privacy obligations, and the shape of the response. The remaining gap is what happens on failure or duplicate submission, which matters for a non-idempotent tool but is a secondary concern given the output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents all 14 fields and the baseline is 3. The description adds prioritization the schema does not: it names the four fields that must be provided and singles out reproduction steps, error messages, and context as the optional fields worth populating.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus the destination: 'Report a bug to the Maindex maintainers.' This immediately separates it from every sibling (all memory_* and collection_* tools), so an agent can select it without inspecting the schema.

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?

The description implies usage (reporting bugs to the maintainers) and tells the agent what content to supply, but never states when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to file a report (e.g., duplicate reports, non-bug issues, self-fixable errors). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Maindex Expert Memory Service tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?