show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Sintegra (Cadastros Estaduais)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific resource being queried but no additional behavioral traits beyond that.
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 front-loads the purpose with no wasted 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description and annotations together provide sufficient context. The description could note the return format, but it's not necessary for basic usage.
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 schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no further parameter information 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 identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like toolkit_info which likely provides broader information.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident; it is implied for checking version information.
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
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Connect and toolkit_info both report connection status and installed MCPs, creating ambiguity. Authenticate and connect also overlap in the authentication flow, while marketplace's list_tools further duplicates toolkit introspection.
Naming Consistency2/5
Names mix English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with a Portuguese verb (sintegra_consultar) and nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), showing no consistent pattern or language.
Tool Count2/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic MCP platform utilities unrelated to Sintegra. Only one tool serves the stated domain, making the set feel padded with irrelevant meta-tools.
Completeness2/5
For the Sintegra domain, only a single query tool exists, lacking any additional operations like listing supported states or verifying service status. The platform utilities do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the surface thin.