show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Tribunal TRF6: Processo
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
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, covering safety. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotations, which is acceptable but doesn't enhance beyond structured data.
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 short sentence with no fluff or redundancy. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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?
Given the extreme simplicity (no params, no output schema, annotations cover safety), this description is fully complete. It tells exactly what the tool does with no missing context.
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 schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional parameter description is 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 resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect or marketplace. It's unambiguous and precise.
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?
The description implies usage as a quick informational query, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative mentions; for a trivial tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.
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
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect checks status, marketplace manages MCP discovery/invocation, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, toolkit_info describes installed MCPs, and the tribunal tool queries process data. No two tools overlap in functionality, so misselection is unlikely.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some snake_case verb_noun (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and the domain tool is a long, fully descriptive name (tribunal_trf6_processo_consultar) that breaks from the others entirely.
Tool Count2/5
While 7 total tools is a reasonable number, the apparent scope is a domain-specific tribunal process server, yet 6 of the 7 tools are generic MCP platform utilities. This leaves only one tool actually serving the domain, which feels too thin and misaligned with the server's stated purpose.
Completeness2/5
For a tribunal process server, the only operation is a generic consult (tribunal_trf6_processo_consultar). There are no tools for searching by case number, listing processes, or retrieving detailed case information. The platform tools don't address the domain, leaving significant gaps that would require workarounds or manual user intervention.