show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
MP Mato Grosso (Procedimentos)
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds specificity about platform and adapter versions but no additional behavioral context like output format or side effects. It does not contradict 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?
A single, concise sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.
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 version check tool, the description is fully sufficient. No output schema is needed to understand the operation, and the simplicity of the tool means no further elaboration is required.
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 schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 action (show) and specifies the resource (current MCP platform and adapter versions). It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, being the only tool for version inspection.
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 usage for checking versions but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to, or which alternatives might exist. The context is straightforward, but the 'when-to-use' is only implicit.
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
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate also deals with credentials. The marketplace tool is a catch-all for many actions (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, etc.), making it hard to predict what it does from its name alone. The domain-specific tool (mpmt_procedimentos_consultar) is distinct, but the platform tools blur together.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent across the set: verb_noun (show_version, report_bug), bare verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (mpmt_procedimentos_consultar). There is no coherent pattern in style or language, making the tool names feel ad hoc.
Tool Count3/5
At 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but one tool (marketplace) is overloaded with dozens of sub-actions, making the real surface much larger and harder to grasp. The server mixes platform administration tools with a single domain operation, which feels unbalanced for its stated focus on procedures.
Completeness3/5
For the domain of consulting public ministry procedures, the single consultation tool is functional but minimal—there are no related operations like history, PDF export, or batch queries. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) cover administration broadly, but the overall purpose of the server is unclear, making it hard to assess whether gaps exist.