show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Certidão MPF
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 agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether it performs network calls or requires authentication), which is acceptable for this simple tool but doesn't exceed the annotation coverage.
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, focused sentence: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and object.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully captures the purpose and return value (versions). There are no missing pieces or hidden complexities, making it complete in context.
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, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional parameter semantics are required.
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' with a clear resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which serve completely different purposes.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need version information) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. Given the tool's simple diagnostic nature, this implicit context is sufficient, earning a 4 rather than a 5 which would require explicit when-not-to-use 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
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace is a catalog/execution platform, and mpf_certidao_consultar is the domain operation. Confusion could arise between marketplace's invoke functionality and the direct tool, and between connect and toolkit_info, but detailed descriptions mitigate ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools are single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), some use snake_case with verbs (report_bug, show_version), and others are noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, and mpf_certidao_consultar stands out as a domain-specific name among generic platform names.
Tool Count3/5
With 7 tools, the count is not inherently excessive, but the server is named 'Certidão MPF' and only one tool actually relates to that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the toolset feel bloated for its apparent purpose. A more focused server would have just the certidão tool or additional related domain tools.
Completeness3/5
For the specific operation of querying a certidão, the single tool mpf_certidao_consultar is complete as it provides the necessary functionality. However, the server's broader purpose is unclear—it includes platform-level tools that do not serve a unified domain, so there are potential gaps if a user expects related certidão operations or management features beyond a simple query.