show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
CEIS (Inidôneas e Suspensas)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
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 description need not repeat those. It adds value by specifying that it displays platform and adapter versions, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the structured metadata.
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, compact sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and well-covered by annotations, with no parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys the purpose, though it could optionally mention the output format (e.g., a string or structured object) to be fully complete in the absence of an output schema.
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, so the schema provides no semantics to add. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameter behavior.
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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 intended use is implied for anyone needing version information, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. For a tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose, this is acceptable but not exemplary.
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
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct function: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and the CEIS lookup. There is minimal overlap, and descriptions are clear enough to prevent misselection.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a Portuguese noun-verb combination (ceis_consultar). This mixed convention and language creates a lack of predictable naming.
Tool Count3/5
The count of 7 tools is within the typical range, but the server is named after a specific domain (CEIS) and only one tool relates to it. The other six are generic platform tools, making the scope feel unfocused and the count somewhat inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
Completeness3/5
For the CEIS domain, a single lookup tool covers the likely need (query registrant status). However, the server also includes unrelated platform management tools, and there are no other CEIS-related operations (e.g., history, details, bulk checks), so the surface is thin and not fully developed for the stated domain.