show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
SINTEGRA: RN
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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety traits. The description adds specific context about what 'show' means (platform and adapter versions), which goes slightly beyond 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description fully covers the tool's purpose and scope. There is nothing more an agent needs to know for correct invocation.
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 0 parametersanding the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate given there are none.
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 the current MCP platform and adapter versions, using a specific verb (show) and resource (versions). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and report_bug, which serve 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 description implies usage when you need version information. It provides clear context (checking platform/adapter versions) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like toolkit_info, which may also provide version info.
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
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct role: authenticate handles login, connect checks connection status, marketplace discovers/invokes MCPs, report_bug sends feedback, show_version reports versions, toolkit_info shows installed state, and sintegra_rn_consultar performs the actual query. Some overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info (both report status), but they emphasize different details (auth URLs vs. installed MCPs), so confusion is unlikely.
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names follow no single convention: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), one is verb+noun (show_version), and one is domain-specific snake_case (sintegra_rn_consultar). The mixing of verb-first, noun-first, and domain-prefixed names makes the set feel inconsistent and harder to predict.
Tool Count3/5
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the count is imbalanced relative to the server's stated purpose ('SINTEGRA: RN'). Six of the seven tools are generic MCP platform management tools, while only one tool actually handles SINTEGRA consultation. The number isn't extreme, but the composition suggests a scope mismatch.
Completeness3/5
As a platform management server, the coverage is solid: authentication, connection status, marketplace search/invoke/install, toolkit state, version, and bug reporting are all present. However, for the domain implied by the server name, the only capability is a single SINTEGRA query—no other operations are exposed. This leaves the actual domain under-covered while over-covering platform plumbing.