show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Compliance de Apostas
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds the specific scope of what is shown (platform and adapter versions) but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as network usage or caching. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's function. There is no wasted wording or repetitive information.
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?
For a parameterless read-only version query with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: it returns the current platform and adapter versions. The annotations handle safety, so no further context is required.
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 and the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there is nothing for the description to explain.
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 clearly states the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on authentication, marketplaces, and bug reports.
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?
No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The intended usage (whenever version info is needed) is implied by the purpose, but the description does not differentiate from potentially similar tools like 'toolkit_info' or offer exclusion criteria.
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
The tools are mostly distinct: compliance_apostas_consultar is the only domain-specific operation, while the rest serve platform management (auth, connectivity, marketplace, feedback, version, toolkit state). However, `connect`, `marketplace`, and `toolkit_info` overlap in providing status and access information, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one for simple state checks.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: `authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`, and `show_version` are imperative verbs, while `marketplace` and `toolkit_info` are nouns, and `compliance_apostas_consultar` mixes Portuguese with a verb-at-end structure. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, and the mix of languages and formats reduces predictability.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within the typical 3–15 range, but the server's stated purpose ('Compliance de Apostas') suggests a domain-specific toolset, yet only one tool actually serves that domain. The rest are generic MCP platform utilities, making the count feel padded or misaligned with the server's name.
Completeness2/5
For a betting compliance server, the surface is severely incomplete: only a single CPF query tool exists, with no support for batch checks, reports, or other compliance workflows. If the server is intended as a platform management toolkit, it is more complete, but the name and primary domain tool suggest a different focus.