show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
SEMA MT: APF Rural
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Show' aligns with that. No additional behavioral details are given, but given the annotations, the tool's safety is well-covered.
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 concise, one sentence, with no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description sufficiently explains the tool's function for a simple version query. No output schema is present, but the description implies a version information return, which is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is complete. There are no parameters to describe, so no additional parameter semantics are 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 clearly states the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, using the verb 'Show' and specifying the resource. It is distinct 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any conditional usage guidance or mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It lacks explicit context on typical use cases or prerequisites.
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
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate handles credentials, connect checks status, marketplace searches/invokes MCPs, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays version info, toolkit_info shows installed MCPs, and sema_mt_apf_consultar performs the actual domain query. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow mixed conventions: some are plain verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), some are verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), and one is in Portuguese with a domain prefix (sema_mt_apf_consultar). This inconsistency makes naming patterns unpredictable.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count for this server, but six of them are generic platform utilities (auth, connection, diagnostics, marketplace) while only one is domain-specific. The count is appropriate, though the balance feels slightly off given the server's stated purpose appears to be a specific APF Rural consultation.
Completeness4/5
The domain surface is a single consultation endpoint, which is fully covered by sema_mt_apf_consultar. There is no obvious missing CRUD operation because the domain is inherently read-only. However, the toolkit lacks any domain-specific history, batching, or additional query capabilities, which could be considered a minor gap if more granular interactions were expected.