show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
IBAMA Regularidade
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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific outputs (platform and adapter versions) but no additional behavioral context beyond that, which is acceptable but not exceptional.
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, direct sentence conveys the entire purpose without any filler or unnecessary details.
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 version-check tool with no parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It states exactly what is returned 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 input schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 uses a specific verb 'show' and names the exact resources ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or report_bug.
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 makes the use case obvious: check platform and adapter versions. No explicit alternatives are needed for such a simple query, and 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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct names and purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace is a vast catch-all for many sub-operations. The mix of one domain-specific tool (ibama_regularidade_consultar) with six generic platform tools also makes the server's purpose confusing for an agent.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case in Portuguese (ibama_regularidade_consultar), compound nouns (toolkit_info), and one bare noun (marketplace). There is no predictable verb_noun pattern, and mixed languages further undermine consistency.
Tool Count3/5
At 7 tools, the count is within the normal range, but the server's name suggests an IBAMA-focused purpose; only one tool actually belongs to that domain. The other six are general platform utilities, making the set feel misaligned with the server's identity, though not extreme.
Completeness3/5
The core domain function (ibama_regularidade_consultar) is covered as a single-point query, and the authentication/connection flow is supported by platform tools. However, there are no additional IBAMA-related operations (e.g., batch queries, status checks, or document verifications), so the domain surface is minimal. The platform side is broad but not deeply integrated with the domain.