Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Claudegram

Claudegram

by sanjar-x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_server_version

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the installed versions of Claudegram, Telethon, and MCP SDK to verify the server environment and compatibility.

Instructions

Версия Claudegram + Telethon + MCP SDK.

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": "get_server_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mcpYes
pythonYes
telethonYes
claudegramYesВерсия плагина

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about what versions are included (Claudegram, Telethon, MCP SDK) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication. It does not contradict 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 highly concise single phrase that conveys the essential meaning without any waste. For a no-argument getter, this is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a 5 for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple, has no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema is present, so return values are likely covered. The description specifies the component versions, making it complete enough for an agent to understand the expected response. No additional detail is needed.

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 schema description coverage is vacuously 100%. The rubric sets a baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning since none are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Версия Claudegram + Telethon + MCP SDK' clarifies that the tool returns the version of these three components, which distinguishes it from other tools and gives specific meaning to the get_server_version name. It is clear but lacks an explicit verb, being a noun phrase rather than a full sentence.

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 does not state when to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the tool is a zero-parameter getter, making its usage obvious. There are no sibling tools with a similar purpose, so the usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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