show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Cadastro PF Básico
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 covered. The description adds a small clarification about which versions (MCP platform and adapters), but no additional behavioral context like output format or rate limits. This is adequate given the low complexity.
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 of eight words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. 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?
For a no-parameter, read-only version check with rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does. No output schema is needed to understand the return.
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 zero parameters; schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics.
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 the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate and connect. No ambiguity.
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 implies usage via its clear purpose, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor mention any exclusions. For a simple version check, the context is implied rather than spelled out.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools are mostly distinct, but there is overlap between 'authenticate' and 'connect' (login vs status), and 'report_bug' duplicates functionality already inside 'marketplace'. The overloaded 'marketplace' tool bundles many sub-actions, making it harder to distinguish when to use it versus the dedicated tools.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: English verbs ('authenticate', 'connect', 'report_bug', 'show_version') mix with noun-based names ('marketplace', 'toolkit_info') and a Portuguese snake_case domain tool ('cpf_cadastral_consultar'). No clear pattern is maintained across the set.
Tool Count3/5
At 7 tools, the count is numerically reasonable, but only one tool ('cpf_cadastral_consultar') relates to the server's stated purpose. The other six are generic platform utilities that should likely live in a separate server, making the scope feel bloated for a 'Cadastro PF Básico' service.
Completeness2/5
The CPF domain surface is severely minimal: just a single consultation tool. There are no additional CPF-related operations (e.g., validation, formatting, status history), and the rest of the tools are unrelated to the domain, leaving the server incomplete as a focused CPF toolset.