show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Certidão de Crimes Eleitorais (TSE)
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond stating what is shown, but it does not contradict the annotations. It thus provides some value by clarifying the resource, but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Given the tool's extreme simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety), the description is fully complete. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose without needing further detail.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly makes no parameter claims, leaving no semantic gap.
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 resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly stating what the tool does. It differentiates from sibling tools like toolkit_info by specifying the exact version information returned.
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 when version information is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. Since it is a simple version tool, the usage is reasonably inferred.
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
Disambiguation3/5
Each tool has a distinct overall purpose, but the marketplace tool is a catch-all covering search, invoke, install, prompts, and more, while authenticate and connect overlap in handling credentials and connection status. This creates some ambiguity for an agent choosing between them, especially since the domain-specific tool is the only one actually related to the server's stated purpose.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use lowercase snake_case, so there is no mixing of conventions, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), and the domain tool is a long descriptive phrase. This makes the set readable but not predictable.
Tool Count2/5
At 7 tools, the count is within a typical range, but 6 of them are generic platform utilities that do not relate to the server's stated TSE certidão domain. This bloats the tool list for a service whose actual scope is a single lookup operation, making the count feel inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
Completeness3/5
The one domain tool covers the core action of emitting a certidão, but there are no supporting operations such as verifying a certidão, checking request history, or listing available certidões. The platform tools do not contribute to the domain, so the surface is narrowly functional but lacks any lifecycle or auxiliary operations.