show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ECAC: DCTF WEB
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, providing a safe profile. The description adds context about what is displayed (platform and adapter versions), which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, so no red flags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, complete sentence that front-loads the purpose. There is zero verbosity, every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's extreme simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, static informational output), the combination of description and annotations is fully complete. It covers what the tool does and its safe nature. A 5 is reserved for tools with more complexity but would be overkill here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is perfect at 100%. With no parameters, the description has no need to explain parameter details; the baseline of 4 is appropriate given the simplicity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to show current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'show' and resource 'versions' are specific. There are no siblings with similar version-display functionality, so it stands distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool is a simple read-only informational tool with no parameters and no prerequisites. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, but the context is inherently clear—it is for checking versions. It does not need exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools are mostly distinct in purpose: authenticate and connect handle credentials, marketplace handles discovery/execution, toolkit_info shows state, ecac_dctf_web_consultar does a specific query, report_bug and show_version are utility functions. However, connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, and marketplace's invoke behavior might confuse with directly calling tools like ecac_dctf_web_consultar if not careful.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming is inconsistent: most tools use lowercase snake_case or simple verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), but ecac_dctf_web_consultar uses a mixed pattern with underscores and a domain-specific name, breaking the convention. It's readable but not uniform.
Tool Count4/5
7 tools is reasonable for a combined MCP marketplace and specific query server. The count is not excessive, and each tool serves a distinct function, though some like report_bug and show_version are minor utilities.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/invocation, toolkit state, and a specific query tool. It lacks obvious operations like uninstall/subscribe are embedded in marketplace, and there's no tool for managing tokens directly (only via authenticate). Overall, the domain is covered adequately, though some marketplace operations are bundled into one mega-tool.