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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the specific subject (MCP platform and adapter versions), which is consistent with the annotations and completes the behavioral picture.
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 fully states the tool's action and target. No filler or redundant information.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only function, the description sufficiently covers all relevant aspects. No additional details are needed for an agent to invoke 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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param details, which is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info.
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 use is clear: call this tool to inspect the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but given the tool's simplicity and unique purpose, no further guidance is necessary.
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: authenticate, connect, ibama_debitos_consultar, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info are all separate functions. The only minor overlap is that marketplace can also run tools like ibama_debitos_consultar, but its description makes clear it's a catalog/discovery mechanism.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are simple verbs (authenticate, connect), some are noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a long Portuguese snake_case name (ibama_debitos_consultar). This mixing of languages and patterns creates a lack of predictability.
The count of 7 is reasonable, but the majority (six of seven) are generic platform maintenance tools rather than domain-specific ones. For a server allegedly focused on IBAMA debts, the tool set feels bloated with unrelated utilities, though the count itself is not excessive.
For the sole domain function of issuing environmental debt certificates, ibama_debitos_consultar covers the core query but makes no provision for other related operations like validating a certificate, listing historical consultations, or managing credits directly. The platform tools fill some gaps (authentication, payment links) but the domain surface is incomplete.