show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Veículos do Proprietário
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 and idempotentHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds scope (MCP platform and adapter versions) but does not disclose whether any network calls are involved or the response format. With strong annotations, the bar is lower, and the description adds modest value.
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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key information and fits the tool's simple nature.
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 info tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. The annotations cover safety, and the sole sentence fully describes the tool's function. No additional details are necessary.
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 takes zero parameters, and the schema reflects this with 100% coverage (vacuously). No parameter information is needed, and the baseline of 4 applies due to the absence of parameters.
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 clearly identifies the resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It differentiates from siblings like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug, which serve entirely different purposes.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the tool's purpose is self-evident from the name and description. Usage is strongly implied for checking version information, yet there is no explicit exclusion or context.
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
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace exploration, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report on connection status, which could cause some confusion for an agent deciding which to call.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is highly inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version), noun-based names (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese verb_noun_noun phrase (veiculo_frotas_consultar). There is no uniform convention or predictable verb/noun ordering.
Tool Count2/5
Although there are 7 tools, 6 of them are generic platform management utilities unrelated to the server's stated purpose ('Veículos do Proprietário'). The single domain-specific tool is buried among unrelated infrastructure tools, making the count feel bloated and unfocused for the apparent vehicle-query scope.
Completeness2/5
For a server named 'Veículos do Proprietário', only one vehicle-related operation exists (consult by CPF/CNPJ). There is no way to list, update, delete, or otherwise manage vehicle records. The tool offers a single lookup with no CRUD lifecycle coverage, leaving the domain surface severely incomplete.