show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Similaridade de Identidade (México)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description does not add extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but it is consistent with them. The tool's simplicity mitigates the lack of additional detail.
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. It is front-loaded with the action ('Show') and the target ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), with no unnecessary 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?
The tool is very simple with no parameters, a clear read-only annotation set, and no output schema. The description fully captures what the tool does and what the agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. There are no missing pieces of context.
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, making parameter semantics trivially clear. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add further parameter details. It fully aligns with the schema, which has no properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: to show current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource, making its purpose evident. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but its uniqueness is implied since no sibling shares a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool's name and description alone.
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 clear purposes, but 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection/state information, and 'authenticate' overlaps with 'connect' around authentication. The single domain-specific tool 'similaridade_mx_consultar' stands apart, but the platform tools could still confuse an agent.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is mixed: bare verbs ('authenticate', 'connect'), nouns ('marketplace', 'toolkit_info'), verb_noun compounds ('report_bug', 'show_version'), and a Portuguese phrase ('similaridade_mx_consultar'). No consistent convention across the set.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server's stated purpose (identity similarity in México) is served by only one tool; the rest are generic platform helpers. This makes the count feel mismatched to the domain, though not excessive.
Completeness3/5
The platform utilities cover authentication, state, marketplace, and feedback adequately. However, the domain-specific 'consultar' tool is a single query with no additional operations like history, batch, or validation, leaving gaps for a comprehensive identity-similarity service.