show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
APF Rural
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds no extra behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, but does not contradict them.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the action and object. Extremely concise.
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?
Tool is simple with no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety. Description sufficiently explains what the tool does, making it complete for this low-complexity tool.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so description need not explain them. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no further explanation 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Show' and resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on version information, which is a unique purpose.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like toolkit_info. There is no mention of when this should be preferred or any context for use.
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
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: apf_rural_consultar is the only domain-specific query, while the rest are platform management functions. Slight overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info (both report connection status) and marketplace is a broad catch-all, but detailed descriptions make misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: apf_rural_consultar uses a snake_case domain prefix, while others are single verbs (authenticate, connect) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). No consistent verb_noun pattern; styles are mixed.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server mixes one domain-specific tool with six generic platform utilities, making it feel bloated relative to the 'APF Rural' label. Not excessive, but the scope is broad.
Completeness4/5
The APF Rural consultation tool covers all expected lookup methods (CPF, CNPJ, number, CAR), and the platform tools provide authentication, status, marketplace access, and feedback. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detailed history beyond the single query), but core workflows are covered.