Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DDEV MCP

DDEV MCP

by codingsasi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ddev_version

Display the installed DDEV binary version and its component details.

Instructions

Display the version of the DDEV binary and its components. Usage: ddev version [flags] For full options: ddev help version

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ddev_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the command 'Display the version' and shows that flags are supported, indicating a read-only informational operation. It does not discuss output details or potential error states, but for a simple version command this level of clarity 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 minimal and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by two short, useful usage lines: 'Usage: ddev version [flags]' and 'For full options: ddev help version.' Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only version command, the description provides the core purpose and usage. It does not describe the exact output format, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable. Contextual completeness is strong given sibling tools exist for more complex operations.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no unnecessary parameter-related content, and the zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Display' and clearly identifies the resource: 'the version of the DDEV binary and its components.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddev_start or ddev_exec, 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a direct usage line ('Usage: ddev version [flags]') and points to 'ddev help version' for full options, providing basic invocation guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention context/exclusion conditions, so usage guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools