show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Nível Socioeconômico e Renda Estimada
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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific context that it shows MCP platform and adapter versions, but does not disclose additional behaviors like return format or error handling. Since annotations carry the main behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. There is zero wasted verbiage, and the most critical information is 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?
This is a trivial tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully captures the tool's purpose without needing to explain return values or additional behavior. Complete for its complexity.
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 per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema already documents the empty parameter set.
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' with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which have different purposes.
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 when to use the tool (when version information is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
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 are clearly distinct: renda_estimada_consultar, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info each have unique purposes. However, authenticate and connect overlap around authentication/connection status, and marketplace and toolkit_info share some visibility into installed tools, causing minor ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are inconsistent: some are English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), some are English nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the sole domain-specific tool is in Portuguese with an awkward noun_noun_verb structure (renda_estimada_consultar). No clear naming pattern emerges.
Tool Count3/5
The count of 7 tools is within a reasonable range, but the server's stated purpose is socioeconomic level and income estimation, while only one tool addresses that domain. The rest are generic platform utilities, making the set feel misaligned and somewhat bloated for the claimed focus.
Completeness2/5
For a server supposedly dedicated to income estimation, there is only a single 'consult' operation and no supporting tools (e.g., batch lookup, validation, or explanation of data sources). The large number of unrelated utility tools does not compensate for the lack of domain coverage, leaving significant gaps for agents seeking comprehensive socioeconomic data.