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?
The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful context that the tool returns both MCP platform and adapter versions, clarifying what the user will see beyond the annotation flags.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that is direct and free of filler. Every word contributes meaning.
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 version-query tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully communicates the result (platform and adapter versions). Sibling conflicts are minimal, and annotations cover safety.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate. The schema trivially covers all parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies for parameter-less tools.
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 uses the specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It precisely states what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling toolkit_info by focusing on version details.
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 intended usage (when you need version information) is implied by the description but not explicitly stated. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling toolkit_info could be considered related.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct in purpose: the certificate consultation tool is clearly separate from authentication, connection status, marketplace, and feedback tools. Minor overlap exists between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' regarding connection status, but descriptions clarify their roles.
Tool names mix languages (Portuguese and English) and conventions: 'certidao_debitos_pj_consultar' uses Portuguese snake_case with noun_verb order, while others like 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', and 'report_bug' are English verbs or nouns. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Although 7 tools is within a typical range, most are generic MCP platform utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) that are unrelated to the server's stated purpose of issuing federal debt certificates. The core domain is served by only one tool, making the set feel padded and unfocused.
The primary operation—consulting the joint federal debt certificate via CNPJ—is fully covered by 'certidao_debitos_pj_consultar'. For the narrow stated purpose, no obvious dead-ends exist. Additional supporting operations (e.g., historical queries, certificate validation) could be added but are not essential given the tool's description.