show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
JUCESP: Ficha Cadastral Completa
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
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, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the tool returns (platform and adapter versions). This contextual information is beyond what annotations provide, so a 4 is justified.
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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Completely concise.
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 parameterless, read-only informational tool with comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect without needing to explain return values (no output schema) or side effects (non-destructive). The simplicity is appropriate.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. It fully covers the tool's purpose without any parameter-related information, making it adequate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and a specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. No ambiguity.
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?
The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (whenever you need version information) and is self-explanatory. There are no related alternatives among siblings, so explicit exclusions are not necessary. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools are mostly distinct: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all relate to connection/status but with different focuses. However, marketplace is a meta-tool that overlaps with the server's purpose (it can invoke other MCPs, including possibly similar ones), and report_bug/show_version are generic utilities. The main domain tool, jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar, is clearly distinct, but the presence of marketplace creates ambiguity about whether to use it or the native tool.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar), others are single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). There's no consistent verb_noun pattern; the main tool is descriptive but the rest are generic and don't follow a clear convention.
Tool Count3/5
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but the set is bloated with meta-tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) that are not specific to the JUCESP domain. The actual domain-specific tool is just one, which feels thin for a server named 'JUCESP: Ficha Cadastral Completa'. The count is borderline: not too many, but the scope is diluted.
Completeness2/5
The server's stated purpose is to provide a complete company registration record (ficha cadastral completa), but it only offers a single query tool (jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar). There are no tools for related operations like listing companies, validating data, or handling multiple query types (e.g., by CNPJ, NIRE, or name are all in one tool, but no pagination or batch). The rest of the tools are platform utilities, not domain coverage, so the domain surface is severely incomplete.