show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
CIGAM
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful context by specifying that both MCP platform and adapter versions are reported, though it does not disclose the output format or any retrieval behavior.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains the entire description: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 zero-parameter schema, strong safety annotations, and simple purpose, the description is essentially complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is the lack of detail about what the returned version information looks like, but this is not critical for a version-reporting tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully captures the input contract. The description correctly omits parameter details, which is appropriate for a no-input tool.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the business-oriented sibling tools like cigam_vendas or authenticate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info or report_bug. The intended use case is implied by the name and description, but no explicit context or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most cigam_* tools target a distinct ERP area (AP, AR, sales, purchases, inventory, cash), and descriptions clarify their boundaries. However, the sales-reporting cluster (vendas, vendas_por_dia, vendas_resumo, resultado, ranking_clientes) has overlapping period-summary purposes, and cigam_estoque overlaps with REL_610 in cigam_relatorio, creating a few plausible misselections.
Naming Consistency3/5
The 21 domain tools mostly follow a cigam_<snake_case noun> pattern, giving a recognizable prefix, but they mix Portuguese and English for the same operation (cigam_listar_lojas vs cigam_list_accounts) and mix noun-tools with verb-tools (consulta/relatorio/job vs listar). The 7 infrastructure tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) use a completely different unprefixed English style, so there are effectively three naming conventions.
Tool Count2/5
At 28 tools the server exceeds the heavy threshold, and the count is padded by a fragmented sales-reporting family (four-plus tools all summarizing sales) plus a monolithic marketplace tool that bundles search, describe, invoke, install, subscription, and prompt-library operations. The broad ERP domain justifies many tools, but this set would benefit from consolidation.
Completeness4/5
As a read-only reporting/advisory adapter, the surface covers the main ERP workflows: sales, purchases, returns, invoices, AP/AR, delinquency, cash flow, payment mix, stock, financial entries, results, and custom reports. Notable gaps are a customer master list, product names in stock data, and per-document detail lookups, but the generic cigam_consulta and cigam_relatorio provide workarounds.