show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Necton MCP
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns version information, but this is more about content than behavioral context. It does not disclose any non-obvious behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the purpose.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for an agent to understand its functionality.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, with zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none.
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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on authentication, data operations, or other functionalities.
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?
While the description does not explicitly state when or when not to use this tool, it is self-explanatory as a version info retrieval tool. The context from sibling tools makes its purpose clear, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions.
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
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., force_sync vs get_item_status, list_accounts vs get_accounts_detail). Minor overlap exists between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, and between get_account_balance and list_accounts (which also contains balance), but descriptions clarify when each should be used.
Naming Consistency4/5
All openfinance_* tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list, get, force_sync, disconnect, update). The generic tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are also lowercase with underscores where needed, though they lack the openfinance prefix. No mixing of camelCase or chaotic patterns, so mostly consistent with minor deviation.
Tool Count3/5
25 tools is on the heavy side for a single server, but justified given the breadth of Open Finance operations (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories, provider status). The count is borderline heavy but not excessive for the domain, though some consolidation could be possible (e.g., merging get_account_balance into list_accounts).
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for financial data: listing, getting details, forcing syncs, disconnecting, updating categories, checking provider status, and handling investments/loans/bills. No obvious dead ends; even connection management includes search, connect URLs, and re-authentication flows. The set appears comprehensive for its intended purpose.