show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
EasyJur
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
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 clear. The description adds the specific behavioral detail that both the platform and adapter versions are returned, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe output format, but for a simple info tool this is acceptable.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action and target, with no wasted words. It clearly states exactly what the tool does without redundant elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only version query, the description plus annotations fully cover purpose, safety, and behavior. No output schema exists, but the simple return (platform and adapter versions) does not demand detailed explanation. Sibling tools do not require exclusion guidance here.
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 there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema coverage is trivially 100% with no properties, and the description correctly indicates no inputs are needed. Baseline 4 applies per rubric for zero-parameter tools.
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?
Description provides a specific verb ('show') and clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which fully states what the tool does. It differentiates from siblings like easyjur_api_status or toolkit_info by focusing specifically on version information.
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 when to use the tool—when you need to know platform/adapter versions—but it does not explicitly state use cases or compare with alternatives. Given the diagnostic nature of the tool, implied usage is adequate but not explicit guidance.
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
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or sub-resource with clear CRUD actions. The easyjur_ tools are separated by entity (agenda, processo, pessoa, etc.) and by action (create, get, list), while sub-resource tools like easyjur_processo_partes or easyjur_agenda_comentarios have unambiguous scopes. Platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) serve disjoint meta-purposes, so no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most easyjur_ tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_agenda, get_processo, list_despesas), but several break it with noun_subresource names (easyjur_agenda_comentarios, easyjur_processo_financeiros) and the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) use plain nouns without the prefix. This mixture of conventions makes the set less predictable.
Tool Count2/5
47 tools is well above the threshold for a focused MCP server, even for a comprehensive legal management domain. The inclusion of platform meta-tools inflates the count, and many entities (agenda, processo) have multiple sub-resource readers. This volume risks overwhelming agents and slowing tool selection.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface provides create, get, and list for each entity, but there are no update or delete operations for any entity. Sub-resources (documentos, partes, mensagens, etc.) are read-only. The only workaround mentioned is creating agenda items to record movements, which is a workaround, not a real update. This is a significant gap that will cause dead ends for workflows requiring modification or removal.