show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Restituição IRPF
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond confirming a read operation. It is consistent with annotations, so no extra credit for enrichment.
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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording or irrelevant detail.
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 simple, parameterless, read-only tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does. No additional context is needed; it is a complete and sufficient tool definition.
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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add regarding parameters, and schema coverage is trivially complete.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes from siblings like toolkit_info by focusing on version information, making it unambiguous.
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 does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like toolkit_info. There are no exclusions or conditional guidance, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.
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
A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct: restituicao_irpf_consultar is the only domain-specific tool, and the platform utilities (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) each serve a unique purpose. However, authenticate and connect both relate to connection/auth status, creating slight overlap.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names follow no single convention: some are verbs (connect, authenticate, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses Portuguese snake_case (restituicao_irpf_consultar). The mixed styles are readable but inconsistent.
Tool Count4/5
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable and falls within the ideal range. However, most tools are generic platform utilities that could arguably be separated from the domain-specific IRPF service, but the total is still well-scoped.
Completeness4/5
The core domain operation—consulting an IRPF refund status—is fully covered by restituicao_irpf_consultar. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no batch query or history retrieval), but the essential use case is complete. The platform tools add ecosystem coverage.