Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Umtri

by io.umtri
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get one bug of a ground

get_bug

Returns a single bug by reference — the cheap path when you already know which bug you mean. ref accepts either the human-facing number shown in the UI (seq — "14" or #14) or the internal id (bug-), so a human saying "#8" needs no listing at all. Unlike list_bugs this ignores status: a resolved bug is still readable by number, which is how you review what a past fix actually did. Use list_bugs only to scan for bugs you cannot yet name. The response carries the full description and metadata, plus impact — the blast radius reached from the bug's target (reachedCount, the reached nodes with hop distance, and other active bugs sitting in that radius). Numbers are per-ground and never reused, so a deleted bug leaves a gap rather than shifting the others. Returns an error if no bug matches.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "get_bug"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesBug number (seq, e.g. 14) or internal id (bug-<uuid>).
slugYesGround slug.
solutionNoHow much of solution to return. Default "full". "open" returns only the unchecked items and drops the prose — the cheap answer to "what is left?".
descriptionsNoHow much of description to return. Default "full". Use "none"/"excerpt" when you only came for the solution checklist.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the status-agnostic behavior, the full response shape (description, metadata, and impact with reachedCount and hop distances), the error condition when no bug matches, and the numbering invariant (per-ground, never reused, gaps after deletion). That last point materially affects how an agent interprets a ref it was handed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and cost argument, then ref semantics, then the sibling comparison, then the return payload, then the caveat. Six sentences with no filler; each adds a fact an agent would otherwise have to guess or discover by error.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain both the return payload and the safety profile, and it does — naming impact's subfields and the error path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining the dual ref space in usage terms — seq number as shown in the UI versus internal bug-<uuid> — including the '#' prefix humans use. It says nothing about the solution and descriptions enums, which the schema already documents well.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns a single bug by reference") and immediately frames it against the sibling that could be confused with it ("Unlike list_bugs", "Use list_bugs only to scan for bugs you cannot yet name"). An agent can distinguish get_bug from list_bugs without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use ("the cheap path when you already know which bug you mean"), explicit when-not (use list_bugs only for bugs you cannot yet name), plus a concrete routing rule for the human input case ("a human saying '#8' needs no listing at all"). It even covers a case that would otherwise push an agent toward listing: resolved bugs remain readable here.

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

All Umtri toolsInspect
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