show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ECAC PER: DCOMP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
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, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond restating the action, like output format or side effects, but since annotations handle it, the bar is lower.
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 with no superfluous information. It front-loads the key action and object, making it immediately understandable.
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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does. It mentions the platform and adapter versions, which is complete for the agent's needs.
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 nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
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's purpose with a specific verb 'Show' and specific resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which deal with different concerns.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving version information but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. However, for a simple informational tool with no close siblings, the context is clear enough.
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
Each tool has a distinct core purpose: auth, connection status, the ECAC query, the marketplace, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. However, there's some overlap between `connect` and `toolkit_info` (both surface connection state), and `marketplace` is a multifunction blob that also covers billing, prompts, and other capabilities an agent might expect as separate tools.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a clean lowercase verb_noun pattern (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), but `ecac_perdcomp_consultar` breaks the pattern entirely—it's snake_case but in Portuguese and uses a different verb ordering. This naming mixes languages, making the set feel inconsistent even though the convention itself (utterances separated by underscores) holds.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server falls comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range. The count feels right for a platform bootstrapping an ECAC integration: one domain-specific tool plus six infrastructure/meta tools. No tool feels redundant enough to cut, though the market place tool could arguably be split.
Completeness3/5
For a read-only tax query service, the single `ecac_perdcomp_consultar` tool covers the core use case. However, there's no history, balance/credit check, or query status tool exposed at the top level, and the marketplace's generic dispatch is too broad to guarantee discovery of what the platform can really do.