show_version
Read-onlyIdempotent
Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
webPosto
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-destructive nature is clear. The description adds that it reports 'current' versions, reinforcing that it is a live informational read with no side effects.
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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Show') and specifies the exact resource in a compact way.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only version information tool, this description is complete. With no output schema present, the description sufficiently conveys that the tool returns current MCP platform and adapter versions; no additional context is necessary given the tool's simplicity.
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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully covers the empty parameter set and the description does not omit anything relevant.
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' with a clear resource ('the current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, making the purpose immediately obvious.
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 intended usage scenario is implied: call this when you need version information about the MCP platform and adapters. However, the description provides no explicit context about when to prefer this over other informational tools like toolkit_info, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools overlap in purpose: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, authenticate and connect both deal with auth/connection, and marketplace alone covers search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and bug reporting, duplicating the standalone report_bug. The two webPosto tools are distinct but the broader set blurs boundaries.
Naming Consistency2/5
The generic platform tools use inconsistent styles: single verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), and noun_underscore (toolkit_info). Only the webPosto tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, login_check), but the prefix and structure differ from the rest. No uniform convention is applied.
Tool Count4/5
8 tools is within a reasonable range and not excessive. However, several are generic platform utilities that overlap, and the marketplace tool is a monolithic catch-all that arguably should be split into multiple focused tools. The count itself is acceptable, though the distribution is imbalanced.
Completeness1/5
As a server named webPosto, the toolset lacks any actual webPosto operations beyond listing accounts and validating login credentials. There are no tools for creating, reading, updating, or deleting posts, managing content, or performing other core webPosto functions. The marketplace tool can indirectly invoke other MCPs, but the stated domain is severely under-covered.