show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Íon MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety. The description adds no new behavioral traits, but it is consistent with annotations and does not contradict them.
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?
One concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It tells exactly what the tool does and what it returns.
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 100%. According to rubric, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description appropriately does not add parameter info.
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 uses a specific verb ('show') and clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are primarily about OpenFinance, authentication, and connection management.
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 purpose is self-evident and no alternative tools serve the same function, so explicit usage guidelines are not critical. The description implicitly indicates this is for checking version information.
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
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each openfinance tool targets a distinct resource/operation (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories, sync, status), and the non-openfinance tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are clearly separate. The only near-overlap is between openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_transactions_by_item, but the latter explicitly handles whole-connection consolidation and the descriptions clarify when to use each.
Naming Consistency5/5
All openfinance tools share the `openfinance_` prefix with a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, update_, force_sync, provider_status, search_). Non-openfinance tools use simple imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) and the noun-phrase toolkit_info, all consistent in style with no mixed conventions.
Tool Count4/5
25 tools is on the high side, but each serves a distinct function within the comprehensive Open Finance domain (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories, sync, status) plus general server utilities. The count is justified by the breadth of the domain, though it exceeds the typical 3-15 range.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the full read lifecycle for financial data: listing and detail for accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, plus connection management (list, disconnect, force_sync), categories, and provider status. Missing write operations like transfers are likely out of scope, and minor gaps such as no separate 'get investment' detail are acceptable since list_investments returns comprehensive data.