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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it shows versions, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey. No contradictions.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Earns its place.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema) and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough. It conveys exactly what the tool returns.
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?
No parameters defined in the schema, so description need not add parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 explicitly states the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'toolkit_info' which might show other system info.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied by the nature of the tool (version checking), but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives.
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, especially with the openfinance_ prefix grouping banking operations. However, pairs like openfinance_list_accounts vs openfinance_get_accounts_detail and openfinance_get_credit_card_bill vs openfinance_list_credit_card_bills could cause minor confusion, though descriptions help.
Tools consistently use snake_case with a clear verb_noun pattern. Open finance tools all start with openfinance_, and utility tools use simple verbs like authenticate, connect, report_bug. No mixing of conventions.
At 24 tools, the count is on the higher side of the borderline range. The server combines platform management (6 tools) and banking operations (18 tools), which justifies the number, but it feels slightly heavy for a single server.
The tool surface covers all major banking operations (accounts, transactions, credit cards, investments, loans) and includes essential maintenance tools (sync, status, disconnect, search connectors). Platform management is also comprehensive with authentication, marketplace operations, and diagnostics.