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 discloses behavioral nuances beyond the annotations: it explains that config-based tokens are permanent and non-expiring, while pasted tokens are session-only, and that calling with no args returns a link. This adds context about side effects and state, aligning with 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 compact and front-loaded, with two sentences covering purpose, usage modes, and config alternative. It is information-dense without redundancy, though slightly long due to the detailed instructions; all sentences earn their place.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both call modes, the recommended config setup, and the user's login flow. It lacks explicit details on the return value when a token is passed, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 description fully explains the optional 'token' parameter: it is a JWT used for session-only login, and the no-arg invocation returns a login link. This completely compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, providing syntax and behavioral meaning beyond the bare schema field.
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 identifies the tool as an authentication mechanism for MCP.AI in IDE agents, with a specific workflow: log in via browser, copy token, and either add to config or pass as parameter. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' and detailing the login process, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 gives explicit usage instructions: call with no args to get a login link, call with { token: "<jwt>" } for session-only login, and recommends adding the token to config as a permanent alternative. It clearly explains when to use each mode, though it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'connect'.
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 clearly distinct purposes: apf_rural_consultar is the only domain-specific query, while the rest are platform management functions. Slight overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info (both report connection status) and marketplace is a broad catch-all, but detailed descriptions make misselection unlikely.
Naming is inconsistent: apf_rural_consultar uses a snake_case domain prefix, while others are single verbs (authenticate, connect) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). No consistent verb_noun pattern; styles are mixed.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server mixes one domain-specific tool with six generic platform utilities, making it feel bloated relative to the 'APF Rural' label. Not excessive, but the scope is broad.
The APF Rural consultation tool covers all expected lookup methods (CPF, CNPJ, number, CAR), and the platform tools provide authentication, status, marketplace access, and feedback. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detailed history beyond the single query), but core workflows are covered.