show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Tribunal TRT9: Consulta Processual
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond the basic action, but it is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction. Given the annotated safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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, short, and direct sentence with no unnecessary words or fluff. It is well-structured and immediately comprehensible.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures the tool's purpose. There is no additional context required for an agent to use it correctly, and the description is complete.
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% (empty). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is granted for no parameters, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics since there are none.
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 shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions, which is a specific and unambiguous verb-resource pair. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'connect' by focusing on version information.
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 purpose makes it obvious when to use it (when you need version info). There is no explicit alternative mentioned, but the simplicity and lack of parameters make the usage context clear. It does not overpromise or confuse.
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
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate for login, connect for status, marketplace for finding/running MCPs, report_bug for feedback, show_version for version info, toolkit_info for installed tools, and the single domain tool for TRT9 queries. No overlap exists between them.
Naming Consistency2/5
Names are inconsistent: first six are single words or short verbs/nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace) with occasional underscores (report_bug, show_version), while the domain tool uses a long snake_case with a domain prefix (tribunal_trt9_processo_consultar). No consistent verb_noun pattern or style unifies the set.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic platform utilities while only one addresses the server's stated purpose (Consulta Processual). This feels like a platform server with one domain tool bolted on, slightly mismatched with the server name but still within an acceptable range.
Completeness3/5
For the domain, only one query tool exists, which may suffice for a simple lookup but lacks any additional operations (e.g., filtering, batch queries, or status checks). The platform utilities are comprehensive, but the core domain surface is minimal and might leave agents without sufficient coverage for varied consultation needs.