show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
OFAC (Sanções EUA)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
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. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is shown (MCP platform and adapter versions) and that they are 'current,' providing context beyond the annotations about the tool's output focus.
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 immediately communicates the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is perfectly 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, safe read operation), the description sufficiently covers the necessary context. It explains what the tool returns (the versions), and with no output schema, this is adequate. The presence of sibling tools like toolkit_info does not create ambiguity that requires further elaboration.
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?
With zero parameters, the input schema fully covers parameter semantics (coverage 100%). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It effectively communicates that the tool takes no arguments.
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 the specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource: 'the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This unambiguously defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which serve entirely 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance is provided, but the purpose strongly implies this tool is for checking version information. There are no alternatives mentioned, and the context of sibling tools suggests when to use it is evident, but the instruction does not explicitly state when/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
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are individually distinct, but the server is named 'OFAC (Sanções EUA)' and contains a single OFAC-specific tool alongside six generic MCP platform tools, creating a confusing mix. An agent could easily misselect a platform tool when the intent is sanctions checking, and the marketplace tool's broad multi-purpose nature adds further ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent: 'ofac_consultar' is Portuguese snake_case, while the others are English and use varied forms (single verbs like 'connect', noun-based like 'toolkit_info', and verb_noun like 'report_bug'). There is no unifying pattern that reflects a coherent server purpose.
Tool Count2/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count in general, but for an OFAC sanctions server the count is inappropriate: six of the seven are generic MCP platform utilities, leaving only one actual sanctions-related tool. The tool surface is cluttered with irrelevant functionality rather than being scoped to the server's stated purpose.
Completeness1/5
The OFAC domain is severely incomplete: only one tool (ofac_consultar) addresses sanctions, with no support for other common operations like batch checks, list selection, or detailed record retrieval. The remaining tools cover a different domain entirely (MCP platform management), leaving the intended purpose almost entirely unserved.