show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Processos Judiciais (Completa)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a small detail about reporting both platform and adapter versions but doesn't provide additional behavioral context beyond that.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no wasted words.
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 trivial read-only tool with no params, strong annotations, and no output schema. The description completely covers the tool's function; nothing else 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 is empty with 100% schema description coverage, and there are no parameters. As per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description correctly doesn't attempt to document nonexistent params.
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' and clearly identifies the resources ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' by focusing specifically on version information.
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 the tool is for retrieving version info but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings. Since it's a simple, unconditional call, the usage is self-evident, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), but 'marketplace' is a catch-all with many sub-actions and overlaps with 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' in terms of status/installed state. The legal consultation tool is unique, but the platform tools create some boundary confusion.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming mixes English and Portuguese, single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version, processos_judiciais_completa_consultar with the verb at the end). There is no consistent convention.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named 'Processos Judiciais' while most tools are generic platform management tools, making the scope feel mismatched. The count itself is not excessive, but the tool-to-purpose relationship is weak.
Completeness2/5
For a legal process domain, only one tool directly addresses the purpose; there are no other legal-specific operations beyond the single consultation. The remaining tools are unrelated to legal processes, so the completeness of the stated domain is severely lacking. If considered as a platform server, coverage is broader but still ad-hoc.