show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
SEFAZ CE: Certidao de Regularidade
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 and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with these. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as network implications or output shape.
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 with zero filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and conveys the exact purpose without any wasted words.
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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent information tool. The description fully covers its purpose, and with no parameters and no output schema, there are no additional contextual requirements.
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%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies as no parameter clarification is needed.
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 precisely names the resources ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which have entirely 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the straightforward purpose implies using it whenever version information is needed. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, which is acceptable for such a simple utility.
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
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace search, bug reporting, certificate query, version info, and toolkit state. No two tools overlap in function, so an agent can unambiguously select the right one.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a long snake_case with verb at the end (sefaz_ce_cert_regulariedade_consultar). There is no predictable naming pattern across the set.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the count is misleading: six of the seven are generic MCP platform utilities, while only one is specific to the server's stated SEFAZ CE purpose. This makes the tool set feel bloated for a domain-specific server and under-scoped for the platform's broader capabilities.
Completeness4/5
For the stated purpose of querying SEFAZ CE certificates, the single consultation tool is sufficient and no dead ends exist. Minor gaps include lack of a separate way to check credit balance or manage certificates, but these are handled indirectly through the marketplace and toolkit_info tools, so agents can work around them.