show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Tribunal TRT5: 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety. The description adds no extra behavioral context like output format or dependencies, but it does not contradict the annotations either.
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 unnecessary words, perfectly matching the tool's simplicity.
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 simple parameter-less tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose. It could specify what format the version info returns, but that is not critical for a version check.
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 0 parameters, schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but none are 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 clearly states the tool shows MCP platform and adapter versions, using a specific verb ('Show') and resource. It is distinct from siblings like 'toolkit_info' which likely provides broader information.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this when you need version info' or contrast with similar tools like 'toolkit_info'.
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
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tribunal lookup tool is clearly distinct, and most platform tools have individual roles. However, marketplace is a broad multifunction tool that includes its own report_bug, connect, list_tools, and invoke behaviors, and connect/toolkit_info both report connection status, so an agent may need to read carefully to avoid picking the wrong entry point.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names like report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info are clear snake_case, but the set mixes bare verbs (authenticate, connect), bare nouns (marketplace), and a long Portuguese domain name (tribunal_trt5_processo_consultar) that reverses the usual verb_noun order. The style is readable but not consistently patterned.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count overall, but only one tool actually addresses the named Tribunal TRT5 purpose. The other six are generic platform and toolkit-management tools, so the toolset feels padded for a server that presents itself as a Brazilian court-case consultation service.
Completeness3/5
The single tribunal tool likely supports a basic case consultation, but the domain surface is thin: there is no clear support for different consultation modes, expanded case detail endpoints, or follow-up actions such as downloading or saving process information. Minor context writing around the main query could be enough for read-only use, but the missing tool shapes are notable.