show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Nubank MCP
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. Description adds that it returns version strings, which is valuable context beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence, zero waste, efficiently communicates 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?
For a parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what information it returns. No gaps.
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?
No parameters. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline score of 4 applies; description adds no unnecessary detail.
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?
Clearly states it shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. Verb 'show' and specific resource distinguish it from sibling tools like toolkit_info which may show different info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when/when-not to use. Simple tool, but competing sibling toolkit_info exists; description doesn't clarify when to prefer this over that.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most openfinance_* tools target distinct resource/action pairs, but there is real overlap among list_accounts, get_accounts_detail, and get_account_balance, as well as between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, and between get_credit_card_bill and list_credit_card_bills. The descriptions are detailed enough to usually resolve ambiguity, but the number of near-overlapping read/status tools makes mis-selection plausible.
Naming Consistency4/5
The 21 openfinance_* tools follow a clear openfinance_<verb>_<noun> convention with predictable verbs like list, get, update, force, disconnect, and search. The non-prefixed platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketlace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break the pattern but are few enough to keep the naming mostly coherent.
Tool Count3/5
25 tools is at the heavy end for the stated banking domain, and several could reasonably be merged: get_account_balance/get_accounts_detail/list_accounts and list_transactions/list_transactions_by_item overlap in purpose. The breadth of resources covered accounts, cards, loans, investments, connections, and provider health helps justify the count, but it still feels slightly bloated.
Completeness5/5
The Open Finance workflow is thoroughly covered: connect discover, force sync, status checks, accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, category correction, disconnection, and provider health. Edge cases like stale data, consent errors, provider incidents, and cross-connector asymmetries are explicitly handled, leaving no obvious dead ends for an agent.