show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Infrações Trabalhistas (MTE)
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?
With annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds the specific content shown (platform and adapter versions) but doesn't provide additional behavioral context. It is consistent with the annotations.
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, concise sentence effectively communicates the tool's function with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool does, and nothing crucial is missing.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; there are no parameter semantics to supplement.
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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', providing specific scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like toolkit_info by focusing specifically on versions.
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 purpose implies the usage context: when you need to know the MCP platform and adapter versions. It is clear and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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
The tools serve mostly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace browsing, the domain-specific query, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is slight overlap between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' in connection status reporting, but the descriptions clarify their distinct focuses.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are verb-noun ('report_bug', 'show_version'), one is a single verb ('connect'), one is a noun ('marketplace'), one is a long Portuguese phrase ('mte_infracoes_consultar'), and one mixes noun+noun ('toolkit_info'). This heterogeneous naming makes the set feel uncoordinated.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within a typical range, but only one tool actually addresses the server's stated purpose of labor infractions. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the server feel overstuffed with unrelated functionality for a specialist domain.
Completeness2/5
For a server dedicated to 'Infrações Trabalhistas', the only domain tool is a single query by CPF/CNPJ. There are no additional operations like listing infraction details, appeals, or supporting different query types. The surface is minimal and likely insufficient for broader use cases.