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, covering its safety profile. The description adds the specific return value (platform and adapter versions) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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 simple informational tool with no parameters or output schema, the description fully covers what it returns and its purpose. No additional context is necessary.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to add parameter meaning. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully documents the absence of parameters.
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 states the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools, which cover authentication, connection, and NFe operations.
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 context is clear: use this tool to retrieve version information. While there's no explicit when-not or alternatives, no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, making usage straightforward.
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.
Tools like 'marketplace' and 'toolkit_info' have overlapping functionality regarding installed MCPs and tool listing, potentially confusing an agent. Similarly, 'authenticate' and 'connect' both handle authentication aspects. However, the notafiscal tools are clearly distinct by operation.
The tools mostly follow a snake_case convention, and the notafiscal tools share a consistent prefix ('notafiscal_'). Minor deviations exist (e.g., 'notafiscal_empresas' uses a noun instead of a verb), but overall the pattern is predictable.
With 12 tools covering both a generic MCP marketplace and a specific invoice service, the count is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
The notafiscal tools cover the main CRUD lifecycle (emit, consult, list, cancel, download) and the marketplace tools cover discovery, installation, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update an invoice or manage user accounts), but the core workflows are supported.