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 (Detalhado)
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as output format or limitations, marking it as adequate but not enhanced.
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 fully conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant wording. It is an excellent example of conciseness for a simple tool.
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?
The tool is trivial in scope, annotations provide safety guarantees, and the description fully explains what it does. There is no missing context for an agent to misinterpret or misuse this tool.
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 the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter information to supplement.
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 a resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.
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 implies usage for checking version info, and there is no competing sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over others, so it falls short of a 5.
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
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection status, and `marketplace` duplicates `report_bug` and includes list/status capabilities that overlap with both. The monolithic `marketplace` tool makes it hard for an agent to decide whether to call it directly or use the more specific tools.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: simple verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), verb_noun (`report_bug`, `show_version`), a bare noun (`marketplace`), a long snake_case domain name (`scr_bacen_detalhado_consultar`), and a noun phrase (`toolkit_info`). The mixed conventions and variable lengths make the set feel ad hoc.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range and not overwhelming. However, only one tool maps to the server's stated SCR domain; the rest are generic platform utilities. While each earns a place, the count feels slightly disproportionate for a server whose name suggests a focused SCR service.
Completeness4/5
The core SCR detail consultation is fully covered by the single domain tool, and platform-level tools handle authentication, connection status, bug reporting, versioning, and toolkit state. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool to list available reference months), but there are no dead ends for the primary workflows.