show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Prefeitura MG Uberaba: Certidão Negativa de Débitos
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond restating the tool's function, but given the tool's trivial nature, no further disclosure seems necessary.
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 that conveys the entire purpose without filler. Perfectly proportionate to the tool's simplicity.
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 read-only version introspection tool with no parameters and no side effects, the description completely fulfills all necessary informational needs. No output schema is required, and the description covers everything an agent needs to know.
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 rubric, 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4, and there is nothing further the description needs to add.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is immediately clear what the tool does and is distinguishable from sibling tools without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases like 'check before connecting' or reference siblings (e.g., toolkit_info), leaving the decision to the agent without contextual support.
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
Each tool has a clear, distinct function, and the descriptions prevent overlap between them. However, the inclusion of six platform-level utilities alongside the single domain-specific tool (pref_mg_uberaba_cnd_consultar) creates a risk that an agent may select the wrong tool if it misinterprets the server's purpose.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming uses a mix of single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long descriptive snake_case tool (pref_mg_uberaba_cnd_consultar). While all are lowercase and snake_case for multi-word names, the pattern is not uniform in terms of verb/noun structure or granularity.
Tool Count2/5
The server has 7 tools, but only one directly relates to its stated purpose (certidão negativa de débitos). The other six are generic MCP platform utilities (authentication, marketplace, bug reporting, etc.) that seem out of scope, making the set over-weighted with irrelevant tools for the intended domain.
Completeness2/5
For the domain of issuing negative debt certificates, only a single consult operation exists. There are no supporting tools for managing queries, historical lookups, or other lifecycle steps. The platform tools do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the surface minimal and potentially insufficient for real-world workflows.