show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Tribunal TJPR: Processo
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what exactly is being shown (current MCP platform and adapter versions), which is useful beyond the structured annotations. No output schema exists, but the description adequately communicates what information is returned.
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 clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it extremely concise and well-structured.
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 zero-parameter, read-only version tool with strong annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool returns, and no additional context about parameters, types, or complex behavior is necessary. The output schema is absent, but the expected return is well implied by the description.
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 according to the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description could not add parameter-specific semantics because none exist, and it does not need to.
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' with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose immediately evident. It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which involve actions or other domains.
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 the tool is for informational retrieval of version details. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, the usage context is sufficiently clear and no alternative is needed.
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
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes and detailed descriptions, but there are ambiguous boundaries around connection/auth status (`connect` vs `toolkit_info`) and the `marketplace` tool embeds sub-acts like `report_bug` and `list_tools` that overlap with separate tools. An agent can usually disambiguate, but not from names alone.
Naming Consistency2/5
Names mix bare verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), a bare noun (`marketplace`), verb_noun forms (`report_bug`, `show_version`), noun_info (`toolkit_info`), and one long Portuguese domain-specific identifier (`tribunal_tjpr_processo_consultar`). The overall snake_case is readable, but the English/Portuguese and verb/noun mix is not a coherent pattern.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within a reasonable count range, but six are generic mcp.ai platform utilities and only one is the actual TJPR/court domain tool. The server therefore feels inflated with infrastructure while its real domain surface remains minimal.
Completeness3/5
The direct domain coverage is essentially one generic `consultar` lookup. For a public court-process query service, a read-only tool is natural, but there are no search/browse/auxiliary operations or follow-up capabilities, leaving notable gaps if the tool is meant to support broader court research.