show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Tribunal TRF3: Processo
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with these without adding extra context (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits). Since the operation is trivial and read-only, the description is transparent enough, but it does not go beyond 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 directly to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and the target, making it easy to understand quickly.
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?
The description is complete for a simple show operation, as it implies the return of version information. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the output format (e.g., listing platform and adapter versions separately), but this is a minor gap given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters defined for this tool, so there is nothing to explain. The description is sufficient and no parameter-specific details 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is specific about the action (show) and the resource (versions), leaving no ambiguity.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.
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
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace, feedback, version, and toolkit info. The only slight overlap is between authenticate and connect, but they serve different functions (login vs. status). The domain-specific consultation tool is unambiguous.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses a long snake_case Portuguese phrase (tribunal_trf3_processo_consultar). This mixed style reduces predictability.
Tool Count4/5
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a management toolkit. The set is not bloated, though the inclusion of a single domain-specific tool alongside generic platform utilities makes the overall scope feel slightly unfocused.
Completeness4/5
For platform management, the tools cover authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, version checks, toolkit state, and bug reporting. This is fairly comprehensive. However, for the apparent tribunal process domain, only one consultation tool exists, indicating a significant gap if that were the intended focus.