OnlineCyberTools MCP (280+ filterable tools)

report_bug

File a bug report with reproduction steps for a malfunctioning tool. Supply the tool ID, URL, expected result, and actual behavior.

Instructions

File a bug report against one of the tools. Use this only when you have concrete reproduction details — endpoint is hard-rate-limited.

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": {
      "tool_id": "<tool_id>",
      "url": "<url>",
      "expected": "<expected>",
      "actual": "<actual>"
    },
    "name": "report_bug"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool_id`	Yes	Menu id of the affected tool (e.g. `base64_encode`).
`url`	Yes	URL where the bug was observed.
`expected`	Yes	What you expected to happen.
`actual`	Yes	What actually happened.
`repro_steps`	No	Ordered steps to reproduce.
`agent_id`	No	Optional self-identification (e.g. model name).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hard rate limit, a key behavioral constraint. It does not mention success/failure response or side effects, but for a straightforward submission tool, this is adequate.

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 concise sentences, no redundant words, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description explains the purpose and a constraint (rate limit), but omits information about what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, ticket ID). With no output schema, the agent is left guessing the response format. This is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'File a bug report against one of the tools,' specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform conversions, encoding, or transformations, none of which are bug-reporting.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'only when you have concrete reproduction details,' and warns about the hard rate limit. This tells the agent not to waste attempts on vague reports and sets expectations for frequency.

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

Deploy Server