show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Acordos de Leniência
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It does add that the tool shows both platform and adapter versions, offering slight contextual detail beyond the annotation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool without an output schema, the description adequately states its purpose and output content. It is complete relative to the tool's simplicity and the rich annotations provided.
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, which earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since the schema is empty. Coverage is complete, so no further semantic guidance is required.
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's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on version information, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but its purpose is self-evident for retrieving version info. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons, which keeps it at an implied usage level.
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
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
The set mixes a single domain-specific tool (acordos_leniencia_consultar) with several generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). While most platform tools have distinct purposes, connect and toolkit_info both report status, and marketplace's broad meta-capabilities overlap with the dedicated tools, creating boundary confusion.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names use inconsistent conventions: Portuguese snake_case (acordos_leniencia_consultar) alongside English single words and compound names (authenticate, report_bug, toolkit_info). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, and the language switch adds inconsistency.
Tool Count2/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the scope is mismatched: the server name implies a leniency-agreement domain, yet six of seven tools are generic MCP platform utilities. This makes the tool set feel bloated with unrelated functionality or severely underpopulated with domain-specific tools.
Completeness1/5
The only domain-relevant tool is acordos_leniencia_consultar, a single query operation. There are no other read or write operations for leniency agreements (e.g., listing, filtering, detailed views), making the surface severely incomplete for the stated domain.