show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Regularidade FGTS (CRF)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the context that it shows 'current' versions and covers both platform and adapter components, which is helpful but not extensive. No contradictions exist.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the complete purpose without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it exemplary in conciseness.
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 simple, parameterless, read-only version tool, the description covers the purpose and is backed by strong annotations. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but for 'show version' tools the response is usually obvious. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 the input schema fully reflects this. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless 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 the specific verb 'Show' and names the exact resources: 'MCP platform and adapter versions.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which deal with different concerns.
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?
While no explicit 'use when' or alternative guidance is provided, the tool's purpose is self-evident and no sibling directly competes with it. The description implies using this tool whenever version information is needed, which is sufficient for a trivial version display tool.
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
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: authenticate handles login tokens, connect shows status, fgts_regularidade_consultar performs the actual FGTS query, and report_bug/show_version/toolkit_info are clearly separate. However, authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection status, and marketplace overlaps somewhat with toolkit_info in listing available tools, creating minor ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is highly inconsistent: tools mix bare verbs (connect, authenticate), snake_case with a Portuguese verb at the end (fgts_regularidade_consultar), compound nouns (toolkit_info, marketplace), and verb_noun styles with underscores (report_bug, show_version). No consistent pattern or language convention is followed.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a server, but the set feels like a grab-bag of platform management utilities rather than a cohesive domain. Given the server name 'Regularidade FGTS', most tools are unrelated to FGTS, making the scope feel bloated with generic infrastructure tools and underweighted on actual FGTS functionality.
Completeness2/5
For a server ostensibly about FGTS certificates, only one tool (fgts_regularidade_consultar) addresses that domain, leaving no other operations like validation, history, or batch processing. The platform tools are complete for managing MCPs, but they don't contribute to the stated FGTS purpose, creating a significant gap in domain coverage.