show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Tribunal TRT7: Consulta Processual
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
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, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds specific context about what versions are shown (platform and adapter), which is useful but does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as whether it requires authentication or returns any side effects. Given annotations cover safety, this is adequate.
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 concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It states exactly what versions are displayed. No additional behavioral nuances are missing for a version-check tool of this simplicity.
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 coverage is 100%. The description appropriately clarifies that it shows versions, which is the only meaning needed. A baseline of 4 is warranted for zero-param 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 states the tool shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions. This is a clear verb+resource combination, distinguishing it from siblings that deal with authentication, marketplace, or bug reporting.
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?
The description implies usage is for informational purposes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others like toolkit_info which might also show version information. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is reasonably clear for a version-check tool.
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 have unclear boundaries: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all deal with authentication/connection state, while marketplace is a catch-all that includes searching, invoking, installing, and managing MCPs. Only tribunal_trt7_processo_consultar is clearly distinct, but the generic platform tools overlap enough to create selection risk.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: one-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), snake_case verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese noun-infinitive combo (tribunal_trt7_processo_consultar) are mixed together. There is no clear, predictable naming convention across the set.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable number overall, but the set is lopsided: six tools are generic platform-management utilities and only one tool actually serves the named Tribunal TRT7 domain. The count feels acceptable for the platform shell but thin and somewhat off-purpose for a consultation server.
Completeness3/5
The single domain-specific tool likely covers the core 'consulta processual' lookup, but there are no other tribunal-specific tools for searching by different criteria, retrieving extended case details, or handling related follow-up actions. The rest of the tools are generic infrastructure, so the domain surface is minimal and leaves notable gaps for broader process-consultation workflows.