show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
CND Federal
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 already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that both platform and adapter versions are shown, which is useful but minimal, similar to the get_calls example where the constraint was significant; here the addition is just scope of output.
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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately terse for a tool that takes no parameters and performs a simple read-only operation.
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 parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description provides enough info to understand what the tool does and what to expect in return. It is complete for its scope.
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 vacuous (100%). Per the rules, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description need not compensate for any undocumented parameters since none exist.
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 the current MCP platform and adapter versions, using the specific verb 'Show' and identifying the resource. This distinguishes it from siblings 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It is a bare statement of functionality without contextual usage cues.
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
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear distinct purposes: cnd_federal_consultar is the only domain-specific tool, while others handle authentication, connection status, marketplace, feedback, version, and toolkit overview. The main overlap is between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info', which both report connection status, but they serve slightly different scopes (provider connections vs. overall toolkit state).
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: most tools are lowercase snake_case (e.g., report_bug, show_version), but some are single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace). The domain tool 'cnd_federal_consultar' is in Portuguese while everything else is English, breaking consistency. The mix of verbs and nouns further weakens any predictable pattern.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within the ideal range, but the server is named 'CND Federal' yet contains only one tool related to that domain; the other six are general platform management tools (marketplace, toolkit_info, etc.). This makes the set feel over-scoped for the apparent purpose, though the total count is acceptable.
Completeness3/5
For the CND lookup function, the single tool covers the core need (query by CPF/CNPJ), but there are no additional operations like validation, history, or credit checks. The broader platform tools provide substantial coverage for the marketplace, but they are unrelated to the CND domain, leaving the CND surface minimal and potentially incomplete for a dedicated CND service.