show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Limite de Crédito PJ
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'current' indicating a live query, and specifies the exact type of version info returned. No contradictions 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?
A single, information-dense sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. Excellent conciseness.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, trivial operation), the description is complete. It clearly states what versions are shown and leaves no ambiguity.
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 description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is sufficiently explicit about what the tool does.
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' with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), distinguishing it from other tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect'. Its purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While no explicit alternative is named, the tool's unique purpose (version checking) makes its usage context clear. There are no similar sibling tools, so the absence of exclusions is acceptable.
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
Disambiguation3/5
The credit consultation tool is distinct, but the presence of generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) alongside it creates context confusion. Authenticate and connect have related purposes, and marketplace is a broad meta-tool that overlaps with the server's overall capability.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: most are simple English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), but the core domain tool is a long Portuguese-style 'credito_pj_limite_consultar' with a reversed order. Mixing languages and conventions makes naming unpredictable.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server's stated purpose is 'Limite de Crédito PJ' and only one tool (credito_pj_limite_consultar) directly addresses that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the scope feel mismatched and bloated for a domain-specific server.
Completeness2/5
For a credit limit analysis server, there is only a single operation available. No history, management, or supporting credit-domain tools exist. While the marketplace tool could theoretically fill gaps, it is not domain-specific, so the surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose.