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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly what versions are returned (MCP platform and adapter), which is not in the 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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of any wasted words. It conveys the entire purpose immediately and is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter version tool.
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), comprehensive annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. Nothing crucial is missing for an agent to use it correctly.
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 schema provides no parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and with 0 params the baseline is 4. No parameter-related information is missing.
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' with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from siblings like authenticate and connect, which serve different purposes.
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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info. It is implied that this is for version checking, but no exclusions or context about overlapping tools are given.
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 are clearly distinct, but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace overlap on connection/status and installed MCP information. The sole domain-specific tool (cnpj_cadastral_consultar) is unambiguous.
Names mix English and Portuguese, verbs and nouns, and underscore styles (e.g., authenticate vs report_bug vs cnpj_cadastral_consultar). No consistent pattern is followed.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but six are platform-management utilities unrelated to the 'Cadastro PJ Básico' domain. The only domain-specific tool is a single query, making the set feel padded.
For its stated purpose, the CNPJ basic registration lookup is covered by one tool, but there are no additional operations like validation or search. The platform tools are extensive but unrelated to the domain label.