show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
DER BA: Nada Consta
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
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, so the description's statement 'Show the current versions' is consistent but adds no extra behavioral context beyond what's in the annotations. No contradiction, but no additional clarity either.
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 that fully conveys the tool's function. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.
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 the tool's low complexity, zero parameters, and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description fully covers what is needed. No output schema or nested objects create additional burden. The description is complete for an agent to use 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, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics and doesn't lose points.
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's purpose: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), and it's distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' 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 usage context is implied; an agent would understand when to use this tool (to check versions), but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternatives discussed. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not outstanding.
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
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have clearly distinct roles, but `marketplace` overlaps with `report_bug`, `toolkit_info`, and `connect` by exposing similar actions like report_bug, list_tools, and connect links. The detailed descriptions reduce but do not eliminate the ambiguity about which entry point an agent should call.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming mixes single-word verbs like `authenticate` and `connect` with snake_case compound names like `report_bug`, `show_version`, and `toolkit_info`, while the domain tool `der_ba_nada_consta_consultar` uses a unique, longer pattern. The names are readable and lowercased, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set.
Tool Count4/5
Seven tools is within a reasonable range and each utility has a plausible role in the platform workflow. However, `marketplace` is a multi-action monolith that could easily be split into several separate tools, and some utilities are partially redundant, so the count is only slightly less clean than ideal.
Completeness4/5
The core DER BA Nada Consta consultation is covered by `der_ba_nada_consta_consultar`, and the platform utilities provide authentication, connection status, toolkit info, and support. The main gap is that credit/balance visibility and top-up are only handled indirectly through `marketplace` returned links rather than dedicated tools, but the primary consult workflow is usable.