show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
FBI Most Wanted
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. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the raw safety profile, such as providing a 'current' snapshot. It does not contradict annotations but also doesn't add significant new information.
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 conveys the exact purpose without filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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 simple, parameterless, read-only version-check tool, the description is complete. Given the annotations and empty schema, there is no missing information that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking it correctly.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is fully descriptive. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that handle authentication, connectivity, marketplaces, etc.
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 (checking version info) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is only implicit.
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
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state are all separate concerns. However, `connect` and `toolkit_info` overlap somewhat in reporting connection status, and `marketplace` is a large catch-all that could be confused with a standalone platform tool.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some are single verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), some are verb_noun (`report_bug`, `show_version`), one is a noun (`marketplace`), one is noun_info (`toolkit_info`), and one mixes English with Portuguese (`fbi_most_wanted_consultar`). This inconsistency makes the set feel like a random collection rather than a coherent API.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a general utility server, but the server is named 'FBI Most Wanted' and only one tool is domain-specific. The other six are platform administration tools that do not relate to the stated purpose, making the scope confusing and the count feel inflated for a specialized server.
Completeness3/5
For the FBI Most Wanted domain, only a single lookup operation is provided, lacking features like listing all wanted persons, retrieving details, or batch searching. The platform utilities cover metadata and lifecycle operations, but there are notable gaps in the domain-specific functionality that would require agents to rely on the generic `marketplace` for deeper coverage.