show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
CAR (Cadastro Ambiental 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the function. While consistent, it does not reveal any side effects, return format, or other details. However, for a simple version query, the combination of description and annotations is adequate.
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 that directly states the tool's function with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only operation, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and expected result. It doesn't need to elaborate on return formats or error conditions given the simplicity.
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 no parameters, and the schema is empty. The description correctly omits parameter details, and with zero parameters, the baseline is 4. There is nothing more 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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource as 'the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which have 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap, but the rubric expects explicit guidance for a higher score.
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 tool set is a confusing mix of generic platform operations (marketplace, connect, toolkit_info, report_bug, show_version, authenticate) and one domain-specific tool (car_ambiental_rural_consultar). Several platform tools have overlapping or unclear boundaries: marketplace also lists installed tools, overlapping with toolkit_info; authenticate and connect both deal with authentication status. The single CAR tool stands out as unrelated to the rest, making it hard for an agent to know which tool to pick for a given task.
Naming Consistency1/5
Tool naming is highly inconsistent: mixed languages (English 'authenticate', Portuguese 'car_ambiental_rural_consultar'), mixed casing (camelCase 'authenticate', 'marketplace' versus snake_case 'car_ambiental_rural_consultar', and multi-word compounds 'show_version', 'toolkit_info', 'report_bug'). There is no discernible verb_noun pattern or consistent style across the set.
Tool Count2/5
While 7 tools is a reasonable count for a typical server, this server is named 'CAR' but only one of the seven tools actually relates to CAR. The other six are generic platform administration tools that would be expected in a completely different server (e.g., an MCP.AI toolkit management server). The count is thus inappropriate for the server's stated domain, as the majority of tools are out of place.
Completeness2/5
For a server ostensibly about CAR (Cadastro Ambiental Rural), the only domain tool is a single consult operation. There is no coverage for other plausible CAR workflows (e.g., listing properties, updating data, or exporting information). The remaining platform tools are unrelated to CAR, so the domain surface is severely incomplete. Even if the intended scope is solely 'consult,' the presence of many unrelated tools makes the completeness of the set as a whole poor.