show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Tribunal TRT1: Consulta Processual
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the detail that it returns platform and adapter versions, which is consistent with the annotations. It doesn't add extra context like rate limits, but given the triviality and annotation coverage, this is sufficient.
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?
A single, clear, and front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and well-structured for its purpose.
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?
For a tool with no parameters, strong annotations, and a simple output of version information, the description fully covers what the tool does. There are no gaps that need filling.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. No parameter descriptions are needed, and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' by focusing on version information only.
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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, but the purpose is so self-evident that usage is implied. A 3 is appropriate because the description provides no context on when to prefer this over siblings like 'toolkit_info' or when not to use it.
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
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools overlap around authentication and connection state: `authenticate`, `connect`, and `toolkit_info` all surface credentials/connection/status information. The large `marketplace` tool also contains sub-actions like invoke, list_tools, and report_bug, creating competing paths to actions that have dedicated top-level tools.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is mixed between bare verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), snake_case verb phrases (`report_bug`, `show_version`), noun-style labels (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and one long Portuguese domain operation. There is no consistent verb-noun or name-based pattern across the set.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools is within a reasonable size, and most platform tools have a clear operational role. However, it is slightly over-scoped: only one tool is genuinely domain-specific, while the rest are generic platform/admin helpers that could feel redundant outside the MCP.AI environment.
Completeness4/5
The core read-only domain need — consulting a TRT1 case — is covered by `tribunal_trt1_processo_consultar`, and marketplace/payment/auth machinery covers surrounding concerns. Deeper court-process operations are not represented, but for a single-source public consultation server there is no obvious severe domain gap.