show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Banco Bmg MCP
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral details about what constitutes 'version' (MCP platform and adapter versions), which is beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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 sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is necessary and earns its place.
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 extreme simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, trivial behavior), the description is complete enough. However, it could optionally hint at the return format (e.g., 'returns a JSON object with version strings') but the lack is not a major gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-level details because none exist, but it confirms the tool takes no arguments.
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 the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are version-related.
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?
While no explicit when/when-not guidance is given, the tool is simple and self-explanatory. The description implies its use when version information is needed. No alternatives exist among siblings, so no exclusions are necessary.
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
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The openfinance_ tools are mostly distinct by resource/action, but there are several overlapping pairs: list_accounts vs get_accounts_detail, list_credit_card_bills vs get_credit_card_bill, list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, and connect vs toolkit_info vs openfinance_list_connections. The descriptions help disambiguate, but an agent could still misselect between these related tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
The core banking tools consistently follow an openfinance_<verb>_<noun> pattern, which is a strong and readable convention. The generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break that pattern and use mixed naming styles, creating two distinct naming tiers within the same server.
Tool Count3/5
25 tools sits at the upper borderline of what feels reasonable for one server. The Open Finance domain justifies many read/query tools, but the inclusion of platform meta-tools like marketplace, connect, toolkit_info, report_bug, and show_version inflates the count beyond a tightly focused bank-data scope.
Completeness4/5
The Open Finance surface is largely complete: connectors, sync, disconnect, accounts, balances, transactions, categorization, credit card bills, loans, investments, and provider status are all covered. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a dedicated investment detail endpoint and limited consent/permission introspection, but agents can work around these with the existing tools.