show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Rede
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
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, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds that it shows both 'MCP platform' and 'adapter' versions, which is useful specificity, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral characteristics such as output format, latency, or error conditions. No contradiction with 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 single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any filler, redundancies, or background. It is appropriately concise for a simple version-check tool.
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 tool of this low complexity, the description adequately covers the core behavior. It specifies both platform and adapter versions, which implies the return will include both. There is no output schema, so the description could theoretically explain the return format more fully, but given the trivial nature of a version display, this is sufficient. The strong annotations compensate for any minor gaps.
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 baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details, adding no unnecessary ambiguity.
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 ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, redeem, or reporting tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies usage: call it to view platform and adapter versions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., for debugging version mismatches) nor mention any alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool overlaps with version display, the context is clear but not explicitly stated.
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
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: the rede_* tools cover specific financial data (charges, account, extract, receivables, sales), while authenticate/connect/toolkit_info handle authentication/status with some overlap but distinct focuses. The marketplace tool is a multi-action mega-tool, but its description clearly delineates between search, describe, invoke, install, and subscription actions, reducing ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), others use Portuguese nouns (rede_cobrancas, rede_conta, rede_extrato), and two use a mix of noun and verb (rede_vendas_listar, rede_vendas_resumo). The rede_* prefix provides some consistency, but the overall pattern lacks a uniform verb_noun structure, making it harder to predict tool names.
Tool Count4/5
With 12 tools, the count is reasonable for a platform that combines toolkit management and Rede-specific financial queries. The marketplace tool consolidates many actions into one, which keeps the count manageable. Slightly fewer tools might be cleaner, but it's not excessive given the breadth of functionality.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the essential lifecycle for both toolkit management (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, cancel) and Rede financial data (list sales, summary, charges, account, extract, receivables). Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit logout or disconnect tool, and the marketplace bundles many actions that could be split, but the overall surface is comprehensive for its intended use.