show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Servidores Federais (Transparência)
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, making the operational safety profile clear. The description adds 'current' to indicate live system state but does not elaborate on any other behavioral traits. Since annotations cover the necessary transparency, a score of 3 is appropriate for the minimal additional context.
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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the tool's minimal complexity—no parameters, no output schema, and complete annotations—the description fully captures its purpose and behavior. There is no meaningful gap in context for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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 is empty, with 100% schema coverage (vacuously). The description need not explain any parameters. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing information.
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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' clearly states a specific verb (show) and a specific resource (MCP platform and adapter versions). This unambiguously differentiates it from siblings like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug, which all serve distinct purposes.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided, but the tool's purpose is straightforward and no sibling tool overlaps with version display. Usage is implied for retrieving version information, which is adequate for a simple utility with no alternatives.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace catalog/execution, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and the data query. There is no overlap even though marketplace is complex; it is still separate from the others.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are mixed: English verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a long Portuguese name (transparencia_servidores_consultar). No consistent pattern.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools is within a reasonable range for a server that includes platform infrastructure plus a data tool. The count is not excessive, though several tools are generic platform utilities rather than domain-specific.
Completeness2/5
The domain appears to be federal employee transparency data, but only one query tool exists (by CPF). Missing other obvious query types such as by name, agency, or a listing endpoint. The platform tools are complete for their purpose but don't contribute to domain coverage.