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 | |||
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 specifics about what is shown (platform and adapter versions), which is useful context. No contradictions with 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?
A single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter, read-only version query with no output schema and accurate annotations, the description fully satisfies the need. Nothing more is required.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details.
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' and identifies the resource as 'current MCP platform and adapter versions,' clearly stating the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are unrelated to version display.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever version information is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling list and the single-purpose nature of the 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.
The tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, with toolkit_info being a superset. marketplace is a large multi-capability tool but clearly separate from the vehicle query tool.
Naming is inconsistent: English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long Portuguese snake_case name (detran_pi_veiculo_consultar) are all mixed, with no clear convention.
Although 7 tools is a reasonable count, the server's stated purpose is vehicle consultation, but only one tool serves that domain. The other six are generic platform management tools, making the set poorly scoped for its apparent intent.
For the named domain, the surface is severely incomplete—only a single query operation exists, with no supporting operations. The platform-related tools do not fill domain gaps, so the set lacks coherent coverage of any single purpose.