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?
Annotations already provide idempotent and non-destructive hints, but the description adds useful context: permanent vs session-only behavior and no-args link retrieval. It doesn't detail failure modes, but for a simple auth tool this is sufficient.
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 two sentences and front-loaded with purpose, but somewhat wordy. It is well-structured with 'Best:' and 'Or' to present options, and every sentence contributes to usage understanding.
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 invocation methods but omits return-value behavior (e.g., success/failure indication). With no output schema, agents may not know if authentication succeeded. For a simple one-parameter tool, most usage is covered, but this gap lowers completeness.
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?
Schema has only 'token' as a string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains `token` is the JWT pasted by the user and when to omit it (no args). It doesn't cover validation edge cases, but it makes invocation clear.
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 authenticates users via browser login and access token, with explicit verbs like 'log in' and specific resources (server config or session). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect or marketplace by focusing solely on authentication.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Best' practice for permanent connection via header, 'Or' session-only via token argument, and no-args behavior to get link. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use each option, effectively guiding tool selection.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate overlaps with connect. The ANTT query tool is clearly separate, but the platform utilities blur together somewhat.
Naming is inconsistent: the ANTT tool uses a long snake_case prefix, while others are single verbs or noun phrases (connect, marketplace, show_version). No clear pattern across the set.
Seven tools are reasonable in number, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated ANTT domain. The single domain tool is buried among meta-tools, making the set feel bloated and off-purpose.
The ANTT consultation tool covers its core lookup well, but only one operation is offered—no related queries (e.g., vehicle, company, or route checks) or additional domain actions. The platform tools are complete in themselves but don't contribute to the domain's completeness.