show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
SCR Banco Central (Resumo)
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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the action, such as return format or side effects, but does not contradict 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, grammatically correct sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only version tool with annotations already covering safety, the description is complete. It does not need to elaborate on output schema or side effects, as the purpose is straightforward and fully conveyed.
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 no parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. With zero parameters, the description need not explain any parameter semantics; the described behavior sufficiently maps to the tool's use.
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 resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on version information rather than actions like authentication or connectivity.
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 to know current versions—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is only implied.
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
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, scr_bacen_consultar, show_version, and toolkit_info are each identifiable. However, the marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions (including report_bug, install, list_tools) that overlap with dedicated tools like report_bug and toolkit_info, creating potential confusion.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are mixed: English imperatives (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), noun-based names (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese verb phrase (scr_bacen_consultar). This lacks a consistent verb_noun or uniform pattern, making the set feel cobbled together.
Tool Count4/5
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a server, but several tools (show_version, toolkit_info, connect) are platform-level utilities rather than domain-specific, slightly diluting the focus on SCR consultation. Still, each tool appears to serve a purpose, so the count is acceptable.
Completeness2/5
The server's stated domain is SCR (Banco Central credit information), yet only one tool (scr_bacen_consultar) addresses that domain, offering a single query operation. There are no additional tools for historical data, batch processing, or output formatting. While the marketplace can compensate by invoking other MCPs, the core domain surface is severely minimal.