show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
PEP Estendida (Parentescos)
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, but it is consistent with them. No contradiction exists, yet the description does not enrich understanding of side effects or edge cases.
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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and directly communicates the purpose. Every word earns its place.
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?
This is a simple, parameterless read tool with no output schema. The description fully captures what the tool does and is complete for the intended use case. No additional context is needed.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds clarity by specifying that both MCP platform and adapter versions are shown. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and this holds.
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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb 'show' and clearly identifies the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which have 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but its purpose is self-evident among the sibling tools. The context is clear: use it to retrieve version information. Since no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, this is only a slight gap for such a simple tool.
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
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: auth handles login, connect reports connection status, marketplace manages the MCP catalog, pep_parentescos_consultar performs the domain query, and the rest are utility/feedback/version tools. However, connect and toolkit_info both provide connection/status information, which could cause an agent to select the wrong one.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming style is mixed: some tools are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a different convention (pep_parentescos_consultar). Although all are lowercase with underscores, the lack of a consistent verb/noun pattern reduces predictability.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the server's declared domain (PEP parentescos) is covered by only one tool; the rest are platform-level utilities (auth, marketplace, version, etc.). This makes the tool count feel inflated relative to the domain purpose, though it is not extreme.
Completeness4/5
The domain tool provides the core capability (PEP/relationship check via CPF) and is backed by platform tools for authentication, payment, and status. There are no obvious dead ends, though there is no consult history or batch operation, which would be minor enhancements.