show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Sanções Austrália (DFAT)
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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific detail about what versions are shown (platform and adapter), which is useful beyond the 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?
A single, direct sentence that avoids any filler. It is front-loaded with the action and object.
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 version tool, the description is complete. No output schema exists, but the nature of the tool makes the return value obvious.
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, so the baseline score of 4 applies. No description needed to clarify parameter semantics.
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 specific action ('Show') and object ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which is distinct from sibling tools. It leaves no doubt about what the tool does.
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 usage context is clear: use it whenever you need version information. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, but given the simplicity of the tool, the implied usage is sufficient.
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
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but authenticate and connect both deal with connection/auth, and marketplace overlaps with toolkit_info in describing the toolkit state. The descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate in most cases.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), one is a compound (toolkit_info), and the domain tool follows a different pattern (sancoes_australia_consultar). No consistent convention.
Tool Count4/5
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range. However, the server is ostensibly about Australian sanctions, yet only one tool is domain-specific; the rest are platform utilities, making the overall scope feel a bit unfocused but not excessive.
Completeness3/5
The only domain-specific tool is a single lookup for sanctions. There is no batch query, history, or other sanctions-related operations, but for a simple compliance check, it may suffice. The platform tools cover connection and lifecycle needs, so no obvious dead ends.