show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
MPT PR: Certidão Negativa de Feitos
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
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 agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds clarity that it reports both MCP platform and adapter versions, which is useful context. No contradictions.
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 sentence, zero waste. Information is front-loaded: it immediately states what it shows.
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 simple version-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers everything an agent needs to know: it shows versions. The annotations cover safety.
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 description need not add parameter details. The schema already covers everything (100% coverage), and the description accurately conveys that it is a simple, no-argument call.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: displaying current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'show' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect'.
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 that the tool is used when the user needs to know versions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It's a straightforward informational tool, so the context is clear, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are mostly distinct: authenticate, connect, marketplace, mpt_pr_cnf_consultar, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info each have clear purposes. The only minor overlap is between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions differentiate login flow from status checking. The marketplace tool is broad but well-delineated as a single capability.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use single verbs (authenticate, connect), some use nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses a non-standard underscore mix (mpt_pr_cnf_consultar). There is no clear verb_noun pattern or stylistic uniformity, making it harder to predict tool names.
Tool Count2/5
While 7 tools is within a reasonable range, only one (mpt_pr_cnf_consultar) actually pertains to the server's stated domain of Brazilian certificates. The other six are generic platform utilities that would be better placed in a separate platform server, leaving the server grossly mismatched to its purpose.
Completeness2/5
The server fails to cover the domain adequately: it offers only a single query tool (mpt_pr_cnf_consultar) with no additional lifecycle operations (e.g., certificate history, validation, or status checks). The generic platform tools do not fill this gap, leaving the actual certificate workflow threadbare and likely to cause agent dead-ends.