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` and `idempotentHint: true`, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the specific scope (platform and adapter versions) but does not elaborate on output format or any other behavioral nuances beyond that.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, simple read-only operation) and existing annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and scope. It is complete for a tool of this simplicity.
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, and the description's mention of 'current' reinforces that no input is required. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.
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 a specific verb 'Show' and a clear resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', precisely differentiating this tool from sibling informational tools like `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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `toolkit_info`. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the appropriate context or exclusions unmentioned.
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 clearly distinct purposes, but 'authenticate' and 'connect' both relate to authentication/connection status, and 'marketplace' is a sprawling meta-tool that overlaps with many capabilities. The domain-specific 'cnd_municipal_consultar' stands apart from the generic platform tools, reducing confusion among the former but making the set feel disjointed.
Names mix single-word verbs (connect, marketplace), compound verbs (report_bug, show_version), and an inconsistent noun phrase (toolkit_info). The Portuguese 'cnd_municipal_consultar' contrasts sharply with English tool names, and there is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
While 7 tools is a reasonable number, the server is named 'CND Municipal' yet contains only one domain-specific tool; the other six are generic MCP platform utilities. This is a poor match between the server's apparent purpose and its actual tool composition.
For a CND Municipal service, the surface is extremely thin: only one query tool for the actual domain. There are no management operations for CND records, credit balance, or history. The platform tools (marketplace, connect, etc.) do not address domain completeness, leaving significant gaps for any real CND workflow.