show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
InfinitePay MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', which is useful but minimal behavioral context 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.
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?
Tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. Description sufficiently covers its functionality. No additional context 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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description does not need to add param info.
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 clearly states 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions'. Verb 'Show' and object 'versions' are specific. No sibling tool provides this functionality, ensuring distinctiveness.
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?
Tool's purpose is straightforward; usage context is implied. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but given the simplicity and sibling diversity, guidance is adequate.
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
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes within the openfinance_* namespace, but some close pairs exist: get_account_balance vs get_accounts_detail, list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, and get_item_status vs provider_status vs force_sync all require careful reading. The detailed descriptions resolve most ambiguity, but selection is not always instant.
Naming Consistency4/5
The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, get_account_balance, update_transaction_category, force_sync). However, the generic platform tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info break the pattern, and provider_status is a noun phrase rather than verb_noun.
Tool Count3/5
At exactly 25 tools, this sits at the heavy boundary. The Open Finance domain justifies many of them, but the set feels bloated because marketplace alone bundles a large number of sub-operations, and several platform utilities could arguably be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
The Open Finance surface is quite complete: connections, accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, investments, loans, categories, sync, status, and provider health are all covered. Minor gaps exist around direct connection creation (delegated to URLs) and single-item transaction detail, but agents can work around them.