show_version
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 the specific scope (platform and adapter versions), but no additional behavioral traits such as caching, error conditions, or response format. It doesn't contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, the description fully covers what the tool does. No output schema exists, but the expected output is obvious from the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and adds no parameter-related details, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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, using a specific verb ('Show') and specific resources. It is distinct from siblings, which are unrelated actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool's purpose is self-explanatory and there are no similar alternatives among siblings, so the context is clear. However, no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided, though it isn't necessary for such a trivial tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace handles discovery and invocation, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, toolkit_info shows installed MCPs. The single domain tool caf_agricultura_pj_consultar is clearly separate. Minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info (both touch connection status), but descriptions clarify their roles.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are bare verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), some are snake_case verb_noun (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and one is a long Portuguese domain-specific name (caf_agricultura_pj_consultar). There is no unified pattern or verb style across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a general platform toolkit. However, the server name suggests a CAF-specific domain, yet only one tool is actually CAF-related; the rest are generic platform utilities. The count itself is fine, but the scope is slightly mismatched with the server's title.
The platform tooling is fairly complete: authentication, connection status, marketplace search/run, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state cover common needs. The CAF domain has a single query tool, which may be sufficient for a simple lookup, but lacks any additional operations like batch queries or listing categories. Minor gaps, but no critical dead ends.