report_issueSubmit a bug report, feature request, or security issue to the agent-helper operator. Reports are quarantined and reviewed before becoming public.
Report a bug, request a feature or capability of this service, or report a security problem. Reports are quarantined and reviewed by the operator before anything becomes public.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | other | |
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a write-style, non-idempotent, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: reports are quarantined and operator-reviewed before becoming public, which tells the agent the submission is not immediately visible and may be moderated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences with the action and the allowed report types front-loaded, followed by the post-submission behavior. Nothing is redundant or padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers what the submission does and what happens afterward. The remaining gap is that it never explains the kind vs text distinction or when this supersedes request_capability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It names the kinds (bug, feature, capability, security) that mirror the enum, but adds no meaning beyond the enum itself and says nothing about the required 'text' parameter, its 8000-character cap, or expected content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (report) and enumerates concrete objects (bug, feature, capability, security problem). It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate from siblings that cover overlapping ground such as request_capability and describe_need, leaving ambiguity about which tool to pick for a capability ask.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the closely related request_capability, describe_need, or browse_capability_requests siblings. The reader must infer both the trigger conditions and the boundaries from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.