show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Tribunal TRT4: Consulta Processual
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds specificity beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by specifying the exact version types shown. It is consistent with the read-only, non-destructive nature and provides sufficient context for a simple version query.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler, redundant qualifiers, or repetition of the name.
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 parameterless, read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete information. It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns conceptually, making it self-sufficient for an agent.
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 the input schema is vacuously covered by the description. There is no need for parameter explanations, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than nonexistent parameters.
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 action ('Show') and the specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like toolkit_info by explicitly naming the version target, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need to know current MCP platform and adapter versions. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's simplicity and name make its usage obvious.
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
Disambiguation2/5
The core tribunal tool is distinct, but several platform tools overlap: marketplace also covers connection status, installs, billing, and bug reporting, blurring boundaries with connect, toolkit_info, and report_bug. authenticate and connect also have overlapping auth/connection responsibilities, so an agent could easily pick the wrong tool.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names are readable and mostly lowercase/underscore style, but the pattern is mixed: single verbs like authenticate/connect, noun-only marketplace, verb_noun like report_bug/show_version, noun_noun like toolkit_info, and a long Portuguese domain-specific name. There is no fully consistent convention across the set.
Tool Count2/5
Seven tools is a reasonable raw count, but six of them are generic MCP platform management tools while only one serves the server's stated Tribunal TRT4 purpose. This is an inappropriate scope: the platform tooling crowds out the actual domain functionality.
Completeness3/5
The tribunal domain surface is essentially one consult operation, which may cover a simple single-lookup workflow but offers no variants for different search inputs or result navigation. The platform meta-tools add breadth, but they do not fill domain-specific gaps; if the intended use case is broader than a single consultation, the surface is thin.