show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
GestãoClick
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns platform and adapter versions, which is useful context, but does not describe output format or behavior beyond that. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentence that states the exact function with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only version query tool, the description is fully sufficient. It states what the tool returns (platform and adapter versions), and no output schema is present, but none is needed for such a simple operation. Complexity is minimal.
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% (empty schema). Description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies since there is no parameter complexity to address.
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 ('show') and clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate/connect (action tools) and toolkit_info (likely broader info), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage (checking versions) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as toolkit_info. It does not mention exclusions or competing tools, so guidance is only implied.
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
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action (e.g., clientes_create vs. produtos_create), and the CRUD verbs are distinct. However, a few non-CRUD actions like cancelar_create and emitir_create carry a misleading '_create' suffix, and the connection tools (connect, list_accounts, toolkit_info) have overlapping concerns.
Naming Consistency3/5
The dominant pattern is gestaoclick_{resource}_{verb}, which is predictable for the large CRUD set. But exceptions like gerar_parcelas_create, cancelar_create, and emitir_create append '_create' to non-creation actions, and standalone tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version) do not follow the resource-based convention at all.
Tool Count2/5
133 tools is far beyond the 'too many' threshold and will heavily burden an agent's tool-selection process. While the set may reflect a large ERP API, the sheer volume makes the server unwieldy and poorly scoped for typical agent use.
Completeness4/5
Core entities (clientes, produtos, vendas, compras, orcamentos, ordens_servicos, notas fiscais, etc.) have full CRUD plus important domain actions like emitir, cancelar, and gerar_parcelas. Minor gaps exist: many reference/lookup entities are list-only, and some lifecycle actions for those reference tables are missing, but overall the main workflows are covered.