show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
RD Station
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that it shows 'MCP platform and adapter versions'. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which is consistent.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline of 4 applies as schema coverage is 100%.
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 the tool displays current MCP platform and adapter versions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which have different purposes.
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 is straightforward and self-explanatory; no explicit usage guidelines are needed. However, it could mention that it is safe to call anytime without side effects, though this is implied by its nature.
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
C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5
The three rdstation_contacts_* tools and three rdstation_webhooks_* tools have identical descriptions listing the same set of actions, making them indistinguishable. An agent cannot determine which tool performs which action based on the descriptions alone.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent: domain-specific tools use `rdstation_<noun>_<action>` (rdstation_contacts_get) but also `rdstation_<action>_<noun>` (rdstation_list_accounts), and some tools lack the domain prefix (authenticate, marketplace). The pattern varies across the set.
Tool Count3/5
At 15 tools, the count is at the upper bound of reasonable scope. However, many tools are redundant (e.g., three tools for contacts actions) and could be consolidated, making the set feel heavier than necessary.
Completeness3/5
The RD Station domain covers contacts, webhooks, events, and accounts. However, contacts lack a delete action, and there is no tool to list contacts. The webhooks set is complete (create, list, delete) but missing an update. Minor gaps exist.