MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals the distinction between permanent (config) and session-only (paste) authentication, states that the config method is non-expiring, and explains that calling with no args returns a link. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is slightly long but well-structured. It leads with the core purpose, then explains two usage paths with clear formatting. Every sentence adds useful information, though the phrasing could be tightened without loss.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main execution flow: how to obtain a token, the two ways to use it, and what happens when no args are given. It does not mention error cases or return values, but these are less critical for such a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only a 'token' string with no description. The description compensates by explaining the token is a JWT ('{ token: "<jwt>" }'), that it is optional (can call with no args), and that it is used for session-only login. This gives critical meaning that the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is for authentication ('log in in the browser, copy the access token'), and it describes the process for IDE agents like Cursor. It is distinct from siblings by detailing the token-based login flow, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or compare with 'connect', so it lacks strong sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains two usage modes: adding the token to config for a permanent non-expiring connection, or pasting it for a session-only login. It explicitly recommends the config method ('Best: ...') and explains when to call with no args to get the link. However, it does not discuss when NOT to use the tool or compare with alternative tools, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, which could confuse agents. marketplace is a broad umbrella with many sub-operations, adding potential ambiguity, though descriptions are detailed.
All names use snake_case, but they mix verb-only (authenticate, connect), verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), noun-noun (toolkit_info), and a compound verb-object (aml_vinculos_consultar). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun pattern.
With 7 tools, the count is moderate, but only one tool (aml_vinculos_consultar) relates to the server's stated AML purpose. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the set feel bloated and misaligned with the server's name.
For an AML server, the tool surface is severely incomplete: only a single query operation by CPF, with no ability to explore related entities, manage results, or perform any other AML-related task. The platform utilities do not fill this gap.