show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Cadastro Ambiental Rural: Imóvel
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
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 description doesn't need to repeat safety info. The description adds the specific detail of what versions are shown (platform and adapter), which is useful but minimal. No contradiction with annotations.
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 unnecessary words, fully front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place.
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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, trivial read operation), the description is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it. No missing critical information.
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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% effectively. Baseline for no parameters is 4 per rubric, and the description doesn't need to add param details since there are none.
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 clearly states the action (show) and the resource (current MCP platform and adapter versions). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: call this tool to check version information. No exclusions or alternatives are needed because no sibling tool provides version info, and context is clear. Slightly above baseline as it is an obvious use case.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (auth, connection status, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit state, and the CAR query). Some ambiguity exists between `marketplace` and `toolkit_info` (both deal with tool listings) and between `authenticate` and `connect` (both relate to connections), but detailed descriptions mitigate confusion. Overall, an agent can usually pick the right tool.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names follow a consistent snake_case style, but the pattern is mixed: some are imperative verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`, `show_version`), some are noun phrases (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and one is domain-specific (`car_imovel_consultar`). This inconsistency is readable but less predictable than a uniform verb_noun pattern.
Tool Count4/5
At 7 tools, the count is within the typical 3-15 range. However, the server's stated purpose is the CAR domain, yet only one tool is CAR-specific; the rest are generic platform utilities. While the count itself is reasonable, the mix feels somewhat bloated for a specialized server, though not extreme.
Completeness3/5
For the CAR domain, the single `car_imovel_consultar` tool covers the apparent need for querying property information, but there are no additional operations like listing or updating. The generic tools (marketplace, etc.) are complete for platform management, but the domain surface feels thin, especially given the server's name. No obvious dead ends for the primary use case, but the coverage is minimal.