Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

report_issue

File bug, docs, payment, latency, or feature reports for AgentPay x402 sites and receive a case ID; reporting problems is free.

Instructions

[FREE] File a bug report, docs correction, or payment problem on any AgentPay x402 property and get a case id back. Telling us something is broken never costs money. Params:

  • site: one of agentworld.me, agentpaystore.com, gibbr.app, solvscore.com, crypto-currency-network.net, x402-agent-pay.com, aiarena.lol

  • kind: bug | docs | payment | latency | feature | praise

  • message: what broke and what you expected (10-4000 chars)

  • endpoint (optional): the exact path that failed, e.g. /api/agentworld/economy

  • severity (optional): low | medium | high | critical (default medium)

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "report_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
siteYes
contactNo
messageYes
endpointNo
reporterNoanonymous agent
severityNomedium

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 does useful work by declaring the cost profile ('never costs money'), the return value (a case id), and defaults for severity, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, duplicate-report behavior, or who can see the case.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the parameter list is compact and scannable. The second sentence partly restates the '[FREE]' tag, a small redundancy that doesn't derail the structure.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent, cost, return value, and most parameter semantics. The gaps are the two undocumented optional params (contact, reporter) and any note on what the case id is used for afterward.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning, and it does: it enumerates the seven allowed site values and six kind values (the schema has no enums), and gives the message length bound of 10-4000 chars. It omits 'contact' and 'reporter' entirely, leaving two defaulted params undocumented anywhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource set ('File a bug report, docs correction, or payment problem') plus scope ('any AgentPay x402 property') and the return ('get a case id back'). It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the 'get a case id back' phrasing implicitly separates it from the read-side feedback_case_status.

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?

Gives clear conditions to use it (something is broken, payment problem, docs correction) and removes the main hesitation by stating filing is free. It stops short of exclusions or an explicit pointer to feedback_case_status for checking an existing 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