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?
Beyond annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: token is a JWT, can be permanent or session-only, and calling with no args returns a login link. It does not contradict readOnlyHint: false or idempotentHint: true, and it adds meaningful context about token lifetime and configuration.
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 three sentences long with a clear structure ('Best:' and 'Or') that makes it easy to follow. While it is a bit wordy, every sentence adds value, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 is complete: it covers the authentication workflow, configuration options, token semantics, and what to expect (a link) when calling with no args. It fully equips the agent to use the tool correctly.
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 'token: string' with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining the token's format (JWT), its optionality, and exact usage: call with { token: '<jwt>' } or with no args to get the link. This is excellent semantic coverage.
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 opens with 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token,' clearly identifying the tool's purpose as authentication. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on token-based login for IDE agents.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header ... for a permanent, non-expiring connection' and 'Or paste it here for a session-only login.' It gives clear context for two methods but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools, hence a 4.
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.
The single domain tool (antecedentes_policia_civil_consultar) is clearly distinct from the platform utility tools, which have well-separated purposes (authentication, connection status, marketplace search/invoke, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state). No two tools appear to perform the same action.
The domain tool uses a long Portuguese noun-phrase verb (antecedentes_policia_civil_consultar) while all other tools use short English imperative or noun phrases (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). This mixture of languages and naming patterns is inconsistent and makes the set feel disjointed.
Seven tools is within a typical range, but the set is heavily weighted toward generic MCP platform tools that have nothing to do with the server's stated domain (criminal background checks). Only one tool actually serves the domain, making the count feel inflated and unfocused for the apparent purpose.
The platform tools are comprehensive, covering authentication, connection, marketplace discovery, invocation, bug reporting, versioning, and toolkit state. However, the domain surface is severely thin—only a single query operation with no supporting options (e.g., validation, different certificate types, or status tracking). For a server named 'Antecedentes', this leaves notable domain gaps.