show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
SINTEGRA: AC
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, but it adds no extra context about side effects, authorization, or rate limits. Given the simple nature of the tool, the annotations already cover the main safety aspects.
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 with no unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema specified, the description is complete enough for a simple informational tool. It fully conveys the tool's purpose without leaving gaps.
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 no parameters, so the description has nothing to add beyond the empty schema. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter information to clarify.
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 function: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Although it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, the purpose is self-evident for version queries. No competing tool is implied, and the description sufficiently guides typical use.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' overlap in reporting connection status, and 'authenticate' deals with auth similar to 'connect' and 'marketplace' invoke's connect links. 'show_version' is trivial but distinct. The main 'marketplace' tool is a megatool covering many sub-actions, blurring boundaries with 'report_bug' and 'toolkit_info'.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version' are mostly verb_noun but vary in verb style (some are bare verbs, some noun_verb). 'sintegra_ac_consultar' is Portuguese and does not follow the English pattern, and 'toolkit_info' is noun_verb. Mixed languages and conventions make patterns unpredictable.
Tool Count3/5
7 tools is a reasonable count, but 'marketplace' is an overloaded mega-tool that should arguably be split into multiple tools (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.), making the surface feel heavier than the count suggests. The other tools are sparse, with 'show_version' being near-trivial.
Completeness2/5
The server mixes platform management, marketplace access, and a single domain-specific query tool (sintegra_ac_consultar). The domain of Brazilian tax information appears incomplete: only one query capability, no history, no credits balance, no CNPJ/CPF variations. Platform side lacks explicit auth revocation or billing details beyond marketplace. Significant gaps for a coherent workflow.