show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
SINTEGRA: MT
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, already signaling a safe operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what versions are returned (MCP platform and adapter), which is useful. It could mention output format or failure modes, but it's adequate for this simple tool.
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?
One sentence, zero waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. Perfectly sized for what it is.
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?
For a 0-parameter tool with clear annotations (readonly, non-destructive), the description is complete. There's no output schema to worry about, no parameters to document, and the sibling tools are all distinct. Nothing is missing.
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?
There are 0 parameters and schema description coverage is at 100%, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The description doesn't need to explain parameters that don't exist, and the 0-param nature is self-evident.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows MCP platform and adapter versions, with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but given the sibling tools perform entirely different functions, the purpose is clear.
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?
The description implies when to use it (when you need version info). While it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are clearly distinct in function. The description provides sufficient context for basic usage.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools target obvious separate concerns, but marketplace is a mega-tool that bundles actions like report_bug, list_tools, install, and prompt management, while report_bug and toolkit_info also exist separately. This creates real overlap and requires careful reading to pick the right entry point.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use lowercase snake_case, which helps, but the semantic pattern is inconsistent: authenticate and connect are bare verbs, report_bug and show_version are verb+noun, marketplace and toolkit_info are noun-like, and sintegra_mt_consultar is a Portuguese object+verb construction. The names are readable but do not suggest one predictable convention.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools is a reasonable, non-bloated count for an MCP server. However, the marketplace tool contains a large number of sub-operations and effectively acts as many tools in one, while report_bug appears both separately and inside marketplace, so the surface is less clean than the raw count suggests.
Completeness4/5
The main lifecycle is covered: authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/invoke/install, toolkit state, versioning, feedback, and the Sintegra-MT query itself. For a read-only data consultation, full CRUD is not expected; missing dedicated wallet-balance/top-up and disconnect/deauth tools are notable but workable via marketplace links.