show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Devedores da União (PGFN)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
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 safety profile is known. The description adds the specific scope ('platform and adapter versions') but does not disclose any further behavioral details such as authentication requirements or failure modes. This adds some value beyond annotations but not rich context.
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, front-loaded sentence that precisely states the tool's function. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 trivial read-only version tool, the description is nearly complete. It states exactly what information is shown, and the annotations cover safety. A lighter description of return format would push it to 5, but for an informational tool this is sufficient.
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 the schema is empty (100% coverage). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description offers no parameter-specific guidance because there are none to describe.
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') and identifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.
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 usage (when you need version info) but provides no explicit 'when to use' alternatives or exclusions. For a simple utility this is acceptable, but it does not name any alternate tools or clarify when not to use.
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
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace, debtor lookup, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is no overlap between these operations, so an agent can easily select the right tool for the task.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools are single verbs (authenticate, connect), others are verb-noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), and the domain tool is in Portuguese (pgfn_devedores_consultar). This inconsistent style and language mixing make the tool names less predictable.
Tool Count3/5
The count of 7 tools is within a normal range, but the composition is unbalanced: only one tool (pgfn_devedores_consultar) relates to the server's stated domain (PGFN debtors), while the other six are generic platform utilities. This dilutes the focus and makes the tool set feel scoped more to the platform than to its declared purpose.
Completeness3/5
The sole domain tool covers a simple debtor lookup (CPF/CNPJ verification), which is a complete operation for that specific query. However, there is no additional functionality such as detailed debtor information, history, or batch queries, and the numerous platform tools do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the surface thin for a dedicated debtors service.