show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
TCU Jurisprudência
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds modest value by clarifying that it reports both platform and adapter versions. It does not describe the exact return format or any environment-related behavior, but for a simple version query this is acceptable.
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 directly states the tool's purpose with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.
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 absence of parameters, minimal complexity, and rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It could mention the output shape or typical use case, but this is not necessary for such a straightforward version check.
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 there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The schema coverage for parameters is complete, and the description correctly implies that no arguments are needed.
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 a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is immediately clear what the tool reports, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on authentication, marketplace, or searching.
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 usage context is implied: call this tool when version information about the MCP platform or adapter is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, though no sibling tool appears to compete directly with this function.
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
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The six platform tools (connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) are clearly distinct, and the two TCU tools have separate purposes: one lists recent acórdãos without a keyword, the other performs keyword searches. However, authenticate and connect both deal with credentials/status, which could cause minor confusion, and tcu_acordaos_recentes vs tcu_buscar overlap partially since both return TCU content. Overall, boundaries are clear with only slight ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: TCU-specific tools use snake_case with a 'tcu_' prefix (tcu_buscar, tcu_acordaos_recentes), while platform tools use camelCase or simple lowercase (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). No consistent verb/noun pattern or style across the set.
Tool Count3/5
The total of 8 tools is within a reasonable range, but only 2 are TCU-specific; the other 6 are generic platform utilities. For a server titled 'TCU Jurisprudência', the count feels off—either too many unrelated tools or too few domain tools. It's borderline, not egregious.
Completeness3/5
The TCU domain is covered by a search and a recent-list tool, but lacks operations like fetching a specific acórdão by ID, filtering by date/relator, or browsing related jurisprudência. The platform tools cover their own generic concerns, but the domain surface feels minimal—no obvious dead ends, but notable gaps exist for a jurisprudence-focused server.