show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Projuris ADV
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description adds little beyond the 'current' qualifier implying live values. No additional behavioral details are provided, but there is no contradiction with the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any filler or redundancy. 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?
Given the tool's zero parameters, strong annotations, and simple purpose, the description is complete. It clearly indicates what information will be returned (platform and adapter versions), and no further context is necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description fully covers the trivial input surface and no additional parameter guidance is needed.
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 resource as 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This is unambiguous and distinct from the many projuris data tools and even the similarly named toolkit_info sibling, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever platform or adapter version information is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter informational tool, the intended usage is self-evident and no alternative is needed.
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
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly separated by entity and action (e.g., projuris_consulta_processo vs projuris_get_processo vs projuris_create_processo). The generic fallbacks (projuris_get, projuris_consulta, projuris_request) are explicitly described as escape hatches for resources without named tools, reducing confusion. A few overlaps exist (e.g., projuris_list_webhook vs a potential consulta_webhook), but descriptions clarify the intended use.
Naming Consistency3/5
The projuris_* tools follow a consistent pattern: projuris_{verb}_{entity} (e.g., projuris_consulta_processo, projuris_create_pessoa). However, verbs mix languages — English 'create/get/update/list' alongside Portuguese 'consulta' — and one tool uses 'list' while others use 'consulta'. The non-prefixed platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) break the pattern entirely, further hurting consistency.
Tool Count3/5
With 38 tools, this is a heavy surface, but it reflects the breadth of a legal ERP with many entities. Several tools are generic fallbacks that cover the entire API, and the platform-level tools add non-Projuris functionality. The count is borderline: not extremely bloated, but more than necessary for the core CRUD operations.
Completeness4/5
The named tools cover only a subset of entities (e.g., no create/update for processo or contrato), which would be a gap. However, the generic projuris_request, projuris_get, and projuris_consulta tools provide complete access to all 757 API resources, so no dead ends remain. This hybrid approach makes the surface functionally complete for an agent, though the named tool coverage is uneven.