Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ThumbGate

ThumbGate

by IgorGanapolsky
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Report Product Issue

report_product_issue
Destructive

File a GitHub issue for ThumbGate with system context to report a bug, suggestion, or complaint about the tool itself. Use it whenever users express frustration or request a feature.

Instructions

Report a bug, suggestion, or complaint about ThumbGate itself (not project feedback). Auto-files a GitHub issue with system context. Use when the user expresses frustration or requests a feature for the thumbgate tool.

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "report_product_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesDescription of the problem or suggestion, in the user own words
titleYesShort issue title (e.g. "Gate blocks valid migration")
categoryNoIssue category

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.23.1
  2. Removedv1.21.2
  3. Addedv1.16.9

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. Description adds that it auto-files with system context, which is useful. No contradiction, though more detail on side effects (e.g., persistence) could help.

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. First sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence gives usage context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers purpose, scope, and when to use, though return behavior is not described.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. Description adds no additional semantic information, meeting the baseline.

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?

Clearly specifies the action (report), the target (ThumbGate itself), and distinguishes it from project feedback. Mentions auto-filing GitHub issue, which further clarifies functionality.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicit usage cue: 'Use when the user expresses frustration or requests a feature for the thumbgate tool.' Implicitly excludes project feedback but doesn't enumerate alternative tools for that case.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools