show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Secretaria de Inspeção do Trabalho: CAEPI
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
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 agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that, but it doesn't contradict the annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, clear purpose), the description is complete. It doesn't need to explain return values because there is no output schema, but the purpose is clear. The annotations provide safety context, so the description is adequate.
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, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is sufficient.
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 purpose: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('versions'), and while it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the sibling tools have different purposes (authentication, connection, marketplace, etc.), so it is clear enough.
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 the current versions. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the simplicity and the sibling tools' distinct purposes, the context is clear. No exclusions are 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
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools separate into distinct purposes: authenticate is for login/token acquisition, connect is for connection status, marketplace is for discovering and running MCPs, sit_caepi_consultar is for official Brazilian labor-source queries, while toolkit_info, report_bug, and show_version are general-purpose status/maintenance tools. Some overlap exists between authenticate/connect and marketplace/toolkit_info, but the descriptions delineate their boundaries sufficiently.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow inconsistent conventions: five use camelCase (authenticate, connect, marketplace) while four use snake_case (sit_caepi_consultar, toolkit_info, report_bug, show_version). There is also no consistent verb-object structure: 'sit_caepi_consultar' mixes a domain prefix with a verb, and 'toolkit_info' uses a noun rather than a verb. No discernible pattern by which an agent could predict tool names.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a server that combines authentication, an MCP catalog, a domain-specific query worker, and status/feedback functions. It is neither an extreme single-domain emptiness nor a bloated them need to be expanded, and each tool can be justified as part of the larger portal/toolkit vision.
Completeness3/5
The main gap is domain-specific coverage: for a 'CAEPI' server there is only one tool dedicated to official labor-question queries (sit_caepi_consultar), which may work but does not cover ongoing processes beyond, say, obtaining records/sharing workers or other closed processes. On the platform side, the marketplace and data are useful but the platform is more of a meta-platform than a complete official labor inspection itself.