bugezy
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool retrieves a specific, non-overlapping piece of bug report data: metadata-only, overview counts, console logs, network errors, voice transcript, page info, and rrweb summary/events. There's no ambiguity between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_reports, get_report_overview, get_console_logs, etc.), making it easy for agents to predict tool names.
Tool Count5/58 tools is well-scoped for a bug report analysis server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, covering listing, overview, and detailed data extraction without redundancy or missing critical functionality.
Completeness5/5The tool set comprehensively covers the domain: metadata overview, console logs, network errors, voice transcript, page info, and DOM tracking (both summary and full events). No obvious gaps for the intended use case.
Average 3.6/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 310 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that only warn and error logs are returned, which is a behavioral constraint beyond the input schema. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, but it omits other behavioral details like read-only nature, error handling, or pagination. The inclusion of log level is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences in bilingual format with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding significant length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, error behavior, or side effects. The minimum viable description for a tool with one parameter is present, but it lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter report_id, which is already described clearly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'console logs (warn/error)' from a report. It specifies the log level, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_network_errors, which also retrieve error-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_network_errors or get_rrweb_events. There is no information about prerequisites, when not to use it, or what context would make it the best choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool fetches errors, with no mention of side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or return characteristics. The minimal description adds little transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but every word is functional. It is not structured beyond a single line, but conciseness is preserved. Could be improved with a brief front-loaded summary, but current form is not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It specifies the error range (4xx/5xx) but does not explain the output format or any pagination. It is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single required parameter report_id. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves network errors (4xx/5xx) from a report. The verb 'get' and the specific resource 'network errors with status codes 4xx/5xx' differentiate it from sibling tools like get_console_logs or get_page_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It only states what the tool does without mentioning authentication needs, return format, potential failures, or side effects. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences (bilingual) convey purpose and value with zero wasted words. Essential information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at the response structure (e.g., transcript text). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect. Additionally, it doesn't connect to prerequisite data like report_id, which is likely from list_reports.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'report_id', so the schema already defines it. The description adds no additional meaning or format guidance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a developer's voice transcript, using specific verbs ('get') and resources ('voice transcript'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_console_logs or get_network_errors by focusing on a unique data type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description hints at usage by calling it 'the most valuable debugging clue,' implying priority over siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only operation ('Get page info'), but does not disclose any behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple read tool, the lack of explicit non-destructive indication is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences (one Chinese, one English) with no filler. All critical information (purpose, output fields) is front-loaded. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the four returned fields (url, title, browser, resolution) sufficiently. For a simple tool with one parameter, this covers the essential context. Minor omission: no indication of data types or format (e.g., string, URL).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description includes the Chinese translation of 'report_id', which adds bilingual clarity but no semantic depth beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves page info (url, title, browser, resolution) for a report. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('page info'), and lists the fields returned. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_console_logs or get_rrweb_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for retrieving basic page metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., get_report_overview for a summary). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only metadata is returned (not full data), which is useful. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, or any other constraints beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short lines (one in Chinese, one in English), front-loaded and concise. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description could explain what fields are in the metadata. However, for a simple list tool with sibling tools covering details, it is fairly complete. The 'metadata only' note helps set expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (url and limit are documented). The description adds little beyond the schema—only context that reports are recent and metadata-only. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists recent bug reports and specifies 'metadata only', matching the name 'list_reports'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_report_overview' which fetch detailed data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining a metadata list of recent reports, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'get_report_overview' or 'get_console_logs'. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden and clearly specifies the output: metadata and counts, no raw data. It implies a safe read operation, but does not explicitly state whether it is idempotent or the data source. However, for a simple retrieval tool, this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences (Chinese and English) that convey the same information efficiently with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks detail on the structure of metadata and counts. For an agent to fully understand the return value, more specificity is needed. Sibling tools suggest a context of report analysis, but the description is incomplete without output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a brief description for report_id. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format or example values. Since schema already defines the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a report overview with metadata and counts per field, explicitly excluding raw data. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_reports (listing reports) and get_console_logs (specific logs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that for raw data other tools should be used by stating '不含原始資料' (without raw data), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool or name alternatives. No direct guidance on prerequisites or comparison with siblings is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully warns about potentially several MB of data, which is a critical behavioral trait for an agent to anticipate performance and cost implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two short bilingual sentences with a clear warning icon. Every word adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should clarify the output format (e.g., structure of events) and any limitations (e.g., pagination). It omits these details, which is a notable gap for a tool returning potentially large data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so the single parameter report_id is already documented. The description does not add any additional context or constraints for this parameter beyond its existence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving full rrweb DOM events. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_rrweb_summary by emphasizing that it returns complete data rather than a summary, and the size warning adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('only when need precise analysis of DOM changes') and warns about large data size, guiding the agent to consider alternative lighter tools (like get_rrweb_summary) for less demanding needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool does not return (full rrweb) and what it does return (count, duration, type distribution). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe, or describe any side effects. The behavioral info is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two brief lines covering key aspects in both Chinese and English. Every sentence provides essential information with no waste. Front-loaded: the main purpose is stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the summary contents (count, duration, type distribution) and clarifies that it's not the full rrweb. This is nearly complete for the use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema; it only elaborates on the return value. Thus, no extra value added for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a DOM trace summary with count, duration, and type distribution. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the full rrweb tool by noting '不回完整 rrweb（太大）' (no full rrweb, too large), which differentiates it from the sibling get_rrweb_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need a summary rather than the full rrweb data. It states the full rrweb is too large, suggesting this is for quick overviews. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fox100039-design/bugezy'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server