show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Olist Tiny ERP
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about output content (MCP platform/adapter versions), going beyond safety traits.
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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource.
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 no parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description fully informs the agent of the tool's purpose and output.
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 exist, so schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, baseline is 4; description adds no param info, but none is needed.
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 it shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. It specifies the exact resource and action with no ambiguity, and no sibling tool overlaps.
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?
The description implies usage for checking versions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use it, nor does it compare with sibling tools.
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
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
marketplace and search_tools have significant overlap, with both covering search, describe, and invoke actions for the MCP catalog. connect and toolkit_info also both provide connection/status information, creating ambiguity about which to use for state checks.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names mix verb-only (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), and verb_noun patterns (report_bug, search_tools, show_version, toolkit_info). There is no consistent convention, making the naming feel chaotic.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a management/marketplace utility. However, the broad marketplace tool bundles many sub-operations that could arguably be split, and the server name 'Olist Tiny ERP' suggests a completely different domain, making the count feel misaligned with expectations.
Completeness3/5
Within the MCP management domain, the tools cover authentication, connection status, catalog search/execution, version info, and bug reporting. Gaps include no dedicated tool for managing installed MCP configurations or direct access controls beyond what's bundled in marketplace. The server name implies ERP functionality entirely absent, making the surface incomplete for the stated name.