show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Rede Celcoin MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond 'show versions', so it meets the baseline but does not enhance transparency.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded with the verb 'show' and the resource 'versions'. Every word earns its place.
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 tool that simply returns version info without an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what information is provided (platform and adapter versions). While the exact format is unspecified, the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.
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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but that is acceptable as there are none to describe.
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 shows platform and adapter versions, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like openfinance tools or authenticate since those 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?
As a simple version checker, explicit usage guidance is not critical. The description implies the tool is for retrieving version info, and the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is distinct. Lacking explicit 'when to use vs alternatives', but still clear.
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 resources and actions, but several overlap in purpose: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, get_credit_card_bill vs list_credit_card_bills, and multiple connection/status tools expose reconnect URLs. The long descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always immediately obvious.
Naming Consistency4/5
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent list_/get_ verb_noun pattern and share a clear prefix. The smaller platform cluster is less consistent — marketplace, connect, authenticate, show_version, toolkit_info — mixing nouns, bare verbs, and snake_case, but it is a minor deviation overall.
Tool Count3/5
At 25 tools, this sits at the heavy end of acceptable. The Open Finance surface is broad enough to justify many of them, but there is redundancy (e.g. list_transactions_by_item largely wraps list_transactions plus account resolution) and a separate platform-management cluster that makes the set feel sprawling.
Completeness4/5
The Open Finance domain is well covered: connection lifecycle, accounts, balances, transactions, credit-card bills, loans, investments, categories, and provider status are all present, and data flows connect properly between tools. Minor gaps exist, such as no single-transaction fetch or dedicated prompt-management tools, but the marketplace tool fills those roles.