show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Astrea (Aurum)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific items shown (platform and adapter versions), which is useful context beyond annotations. A score of 4 reflects this added 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 sentence with no extraneous information. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and result.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, low complexity), the description is complete. It clearly conveys what the tool does without needing additional context.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully defines the input. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate since none exist. Baseline 4 for no 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 clearly states the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and specifies the resources ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates usage for checking version information, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, given the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters, the implied usage is clear enough.
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
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tool groups share identical descriptions because they were flattened from parameterized actions (the five astrea_processos_* tools, astrea_agenda_global/por_cliente, and astrea_financeiro_despesas/honorarios). The names and [Flattened action] markers help, but an agent relying on descriptions can easily pick the wrong variant or think the tools are interchangeable.
Naming Consistency2/5
The astrea_ prefix gives some coherence, but the pattern is inconsistent: singular vs. plural objects (astrea_processo_criar vs. astrea_processos_list), verb-only names (astrea_encerrar), double-verb names (astrea_etiquetar_aplicar), and six unrelated English platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) mixed in. It is readable but not predictable enough for a reliable convention.
Tool Count2/5
35 tools is well into the too-heavy range, especially because several of them are flattened actions that duplicate one another's descriptions and could have been single parameterized tools. The set is further bloated by platform-level tools like marketplace, authenticate, and connect that are unrelated to the Astrea legal domain.
Completeness3/5
The core process lifecycle is fairly well covered: create, edit, search, list, count, close, tag, and financial summaries exist. However, there are notable gaps: no task listing, no standalone client create/update/delete, no document list/delete, and no appointment update tool, which leaves several common workflows incomplete.