Skip to main content
Glama

litellm_version

Verify the MCP server's installed version and LiteLLM proxy readiness. Query the health endpoint to confirm service status and database connectivity before relying on proxy operations.

Instructions

Get the MCP server version and the LiteLLM service readiness.

mcp is this package's version (importlib metadata). service is GET /health/readiness, reporting the proxy's status and database connectivity - on LiteLLM v1.93.0 that payload is {status, db}, with no LiteLLM version field.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.12
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "additionalProperties": true,
      -  "title": "litellm_versionDictOutput",
      -  "type": "object"
      -}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it specifies the data sources (importlib metadata, GET /health/readiness), the reported fields (proxy status, database connectivity), and even notes version-specific payload behavior on LiteLLM v1.93.0, including the absence of a LiteLLM version field.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The inline code identifiers make the return structure easy to parse without being verbose.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully explains what will be returned, where each value comes from, and even cautions about version-specific differences. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain. The description adds meaningful context about the two output components, which is more than the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies two distinct outputs: the MCP server version and LiteLLM service readiness. This fully distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like litellm_admin, litellm_execute, and litellm_read.

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 explains what the tool returns and that service readiness comes from GET /health/readiness, but it does not explicitly state when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose rather than spelled out.

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