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 context beyond annotations by explaining the session-only nature of the token passed to the tool versus the permanent nature of the config header. It also clarifies the flow: no args returns a link, token input authenticates. This supplements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) with practical usage behavior.
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 about three sentences long and front-loads the essential context (MCP.AI for IDE agents) before giving instructions. Each sentence adds distinct information: obtaining the token, the permanent config option, and the session-only tool usage. No extraneous content.
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?
The description covers the main use cases and return behavior for the no-arg case (returns link), but does not explicitly state the return for a token call (e.g., success message). Given the simple tool and available annotations, this is a minor gap but not critical.
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 lists an optional 'token' string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by defining it as a JWT access token, explaining how to obtain it, and clarifying that omitting it returns a login link. This gives the parameter clear meaning.
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 explains the tool's role in authentication, instructing the caller to either provide a JWT token via the 'token' parameter or call with no arguments to receive a login URL. It distinguishes itself from the 'connect' sibling by focusing specifically on the authentication handshake.
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?
It explicitly recommends adding the token to the server's config as a permanent header instead of using the tool for persistent auth, stating this is 'Best.' It then explains the tool is for session-only login when the token is pasted directly, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are named, but the config method is an alternative.
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 domain-specific tool is clearly distinct, but several platform tools overlap in scope: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all relate to connection/auth status, and marketplace is a multi-purpose tool that could be confused with the others. Overall boundaries are mostly clear due to detailed descriptions, but not perfectly distinct.
Tool names are inconsistent: the domain tool uses a long snake_case phrase, while platform tools mix single nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace) with underscored compounds (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). No clear naming convention is applied across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the composition is mismatched: only one tool relates to the server's stated domain (Antecedentes Polícia Federal), while the other six are generic MCP platform utilities. This makes the count feel padded for a domain-specific server.
For the core domain, the single consult tool fully covers the necessary query operation, and the infrastructure tools (auth, connect, marketplace) support the workflow. Minor gaps exist like batch queries or PDF export, but the surface is generally complete for its stated purpose.