show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Tribunal TRT2: Consulta Processual
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
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, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds clarity that the version info specifically pertains to 'MCP platform and adapter', which is useful but goes little beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction; the description appropriately characterizes the behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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 version query, the description is complete. Although there is no output schema and no mention of the return value, the simplicity of this tool makes the description fully adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for the parameter-free case is appropriate here.
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 a clear resource ('the current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is unambiguous and readily distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which concern authentication, connections, and marketplace operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool vs. the sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' or 'marketplace'. While arguably not necessary for such a simple version tool, the rubric requires explicit guidance for a score above 2.
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
The tools include a mix of platform management functions (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) and one domain-specific tool (tribunal_trt2_processo_consultar). While the platform tools are distinct, the 'marketplace' tool has a very broad and complex description that overlaps with 'toolkit_info' and 'connect' in terms of installation and connection status; also 'report_bug' is narrow and could be considered an action within a platform, but not clearly distinct from feedback features of other tools.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools use a simple lowercase verb or noun (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), which is somewhat consistent but lacks a clear verb_noun pattern. The domain-specific tool 'tribunal_trt2_processo_consultar' follows a completely different naming convention (domain prefix + process + verb), breaking the pattern. The verbs are also vague (authenticate, connect) and mixing verbs and nouns.
Tool Count4/5
The server has 7 tools, which is within a reasonable range. However, the tool set is very top-heavy on platform management and only has one actual domain-specific tool for the legal process consultation. For a server named 'Tribunal TRT2: Consulta Processual', the user would expect more tools related to the legal domain; the current count feels slightly over-scoped with platform tools and under-scoped for the domain.
Completeness1/5
The domain is likely about querying Brazilian labor court procesos (TRT2). However, the only domain tool is a single 'consultar' action, which is a read-only query. There are no tools for listing, filtering, updating, or managing anything related to procesos. The rest of the tools are for the MCP platform itself, not the legal domain, so the tool surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose.