show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Certidão TRF
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 disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope of 'platform and adapter versions' but does not describe output format or further behavior, which is acceptable given the annotations.
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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.
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: no parameters, read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description sufficiently conveys its purpose and scope for an agent to select and invoke it without additional 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 and the schema has 100% coverage, so the schema is complete. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed, aligning with the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool toolkit_info, which could overlap in 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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description states what the tool does but does not indicate when to use it versus alternatives like toolkit_info or other informational tools.
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 distinct purposes, but `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection/status information, and `marketplace` is an overloaded catch-all covering search, invoke, install, and billing, making its boundaries fuzzy. The detailed descriptions help differentiate, but some confusion is possible.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names are inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese domain-specific name (trf_certidao_consultar). No clear pattern unifies the set, mixing English/Portuguese and different naming conventions.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the set mixes generic platform utilities (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) with a single domain-specific tool, making the count feel inflated for the stated purpose of the server (Certidão TRF). The count itself is not extreme, but the inclusion of unrelated infrastructure tools is questionable.
Completeness2/5
The domain appears to be querying Brazilian federal court certificates, but only one tool (`trf_certidao_consultar`) handles that. There is no way to manage past queries, retrieve documents, list available certificate types, or handle any other part of the certificate lifecycle. The remaining tools are about MCP platform management, not the domain, leaving significant gaps.