show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Histórico Veicular SP
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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool reports both platform and adapter versions but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output format or network requirements.
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?
One sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and object, no extraneous content.
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 simplicity, empty parameter schema, and annotations covering safety, the single-sentence description fully covers the tool's purpose and scope. No output schema exists, but for a version-check tool this is sufficient.
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 takes zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies.
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 specifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making its function clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like toolkit_info or authenticate.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the need for version information is implied. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
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
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: authenticate is for login token, connect for status, marketplace for discovering/running MCPs, report_bug for feedback, show_version for versions, toolkit_info for installed state, and the domain-specific consultar tool. The only slight overlap is between authenticate and connect, as both relate to connection/auth, but their functions are clearly differentiated in the descriptions.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), compound nouns (toolkit_info), and a snake_case domain-specific name (veiculo_historico_sp_consultar). Mixing conventions makes it hard to predict related tool names.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range. However, the server bundles broad platform utilities with a single domain-specific tool, creating a mismatch with the server name. Still, the count itself is reasonable for the actual functionality offered.
Completeness3/5
For the vehicle history domain, there is only one consult tool, which covers the basic query but lacks any supporting operations (e.g., history, status, or batch). The platform utilities are fairly complete but belong to a different purpose. This leaves notable gaps if the server is meant to be a cohesive vehicle-history service.