show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Certidão de Débitos PF
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific scope of versions displayed (MCP platform and adapter), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like output format or error behavior. 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the full purpose without any redundant wording or irrelevant details. It is appropriately sized for a simple information tool.
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 zero-parameter nature, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is fully complete for its simple informational role. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, and the annotations cover safety, making this a complete package for selection and invocation.
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 takes zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The empty schema confirms this, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 action ('Show') and the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is highly specific and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 description does not explicitly say when to use this tool or provide alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is obvious and its siblings are unrelated, so usage is clearly implied but not formally guided. No misleading or exclusionary information is present.
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
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose, and the descriptions prevent direct overlap. The only slight ambiguity is between authenticate and connect, but both are adequately differentiated. However, the mix of generic platform tools with a single domain tool may confuse an agent about which to use for certificate tasks.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are highly inconsistent: some are verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), one is a long Portuguese snake_case (certidao_debitos_pf_consultar), and others mix verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version). The language mixing and lack of a uniform convention make the naming chaotic.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server's name suggests a focused domain service, and only one tool actually serves that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the count feel bloated for the apparent purpose and creating a scope mismatch.
Completeness2/5
For the stated domain of certidão de débitos, only a single consult operation is provided, with no supporting tools for history, downloads, or related management. The platform utilities do not address domain-specific gaps, leaving the coverage severely incomplete for the server's implied purpose.