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. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond stating it shows 'current' versions, which is useful but does not elaborate on output format or side effects. It does not contradict 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Perfectly concise and well-structured.
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 version query, the description is fully sufficient. No output schema is needed, and the simple behavior is completely captured.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the empty schema is fully described. The description needs no parameter details, so the baseline of 4 applies.
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 clearly specifies the action ('Show') and the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making it distinct from sibling tools that handle authentication, marketplace, etc.
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 implies usage for checking version info but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide context like 'use for debugging'. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
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.
There is a separate report_bug tool while marketplace also mentions report_bug internally, causing duplication. Additionally, authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection status, creating boundary confusion.
Tool names mix English and Portuguese (authenticate vs nfe_completa_consultar), and mix verb forms (authenticate, connect) with noun forms (marketplace, toolkit_info), with no consistent verb_noun pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a server, but the massive marketplace tool bundles dozens of operations into a single tool, making the set feel both overcrowded and under-represented.
The NFe consultation itself is a single query tool, and the rest are platform utilities not directly related to NFe, so the domain coverage is thin. Missing functions like listing past consultations or managing account credits, though the core consult works.