show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Plaud
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, which fully cover safety expectations. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., caching, errors), but given the annotations, it is sufficient.
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, direct sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a trivial, no-argument tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple version query, the description adequately implies the return value (versions). It does not specify exact output format, but given the lack of an output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist.
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 and specifically states the tool's function: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'toolkit_info' which might display different information.
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?
The tool has no parameters and is a simple query, so usage context is unambiguous. It does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives, but its purpose is inherently clear and self-contained.
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
The Plaud-specific tools are clearly distinct, but 'marketplace' is a mega-tool that appears to cover search, invoke, install, subscribe, prompts, and bug reporting — overlapping with connect, toolkit_info, and the standalone report_bug tool. An agent could easily pick the wrong entry point for connection status, installed tools, or feedback.
Naming Consistency3/5
There is a clean plaud_get_* / plaud_list_* cluster, but the platform tools mix verbs and nouns: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info. The naming is readable and the Plaud prefix helps, but the overall pattern is inconsistent.
Tool Count4/5
Eleven tools is a reasonable count and mostly well-scoped for a Plaud integration plus MCP platform management. It is slightly heavy because 'marketplace' bundles many sub-capabilities into one tool while several small utility tools exist separately.
Completeness4/5
The Plaud retrieval surface covers user, recordings, recording details, transcript, and AI notes, which is sufficient for the main use case of accessing Plaud data. Minor gaps exist around delete/update operations, but recordings are created externally by the hardware, so read-focused coverage is acceptable.