Skip to main content
Glama

R3

by org.r3js
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List the bug reports the user has filed

r3_bug_reports_mine
Read-onlyIdempotent

The user's own support issues — bug reports and questions they or their agents (agent keys and app connections) sent R3 — newest first, with status, date, the project and whether an agent filed it (and which), each with its link. It shows whether a fault is already reported, before r3_bug_report would file it twice. Needs the support:write right.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many to return, newest first (default 20).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYes
answerYesThis answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.
issuesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / answer
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "issues",
-  "total"
-]New value: +[
+  "issues",
+  "total",
+  "answer"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the required 'support:write' right for a read-oriented tool, and the contents/ordering of results (status, date, project, agent-attribution, link, newest first). It stops short of pagination or rate-limit detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the alternative-tool routing. The parentheticals (agent keys/app connections, which agent) are dense but each carries a real qualifier; the phrasing around the duplicate-filing point is slightly indirect but earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, yet the description characterizes them anyway alongside the auth requirement and default ordering. Combined with the safety annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only pagination/large-result behavior is unaddressed.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'limit' including its default and maximum. The description mentions ordering but adds nothing about the limit, paging, or what happens when more than 100 exist, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 names a specific resource (the user's own support issues, including bug reports and questions filed via agent keys/app connections) and states the ordering (newest first). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that files reports, r3_bug_report, so an agent can route between the two 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?

It gives an explicit usage condition — check here first to see whether a fault is already reported — and names the alternative tool (r3_bug_report) that the agent would otherwise call and duplicate. This is the when-to-use/when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance the dimension asks for.

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

All R3 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources