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 show idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it handles authentication and token management, explaining different behaviors based on parameters (with token vs without). It does not contradict annotations and provides helpful context beyond the structured fields.
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 informative but slightly verbose (three sentences). It front-loads the purpose and then details usage. Every sentence adds value, though it could be tightened slightly.
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?
Given the simple tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers all three authentication modes comprehensively. It explains what to expect and how to use it, making it complete for its complexity level.
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 has 0% description coverage for the 'token' parameter. The description explicitly explains the token parameter: it is a JWT from browser login, optional, and omitting it returns a login link. This adds full meaning beyond the schema.
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 for MCP.AI IDE agents. It specifies the verb (log in, authenticate) and resource (token/session). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique authentication purpose, especially given the diverse sibling names (astrea_*, connect, etc.) which are unrelated.
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 scenarios: adding token to config for permanent access, pasting token for session login, or calling with no args to get the login link. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear and covers the main use cases.
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.
Several tool groups share identical descriptions because they were flattened from parameterized actions (the five astrea_processos_* tools, astrea_agenda_global/por_cliente, and astrea_financeiro_despesas/honorarios). The names and [Flattened action] markers help, but an agent relying on descriptions can easily pick the wrong variant or think the tools are interchangeable.
The astrea_ prefix gives some coherence, but the pattern is inconsistent: singular vs. plural objects (astrea_processo_criar vs. astrea_processos_list), verb-only names (astrea_encerrar), double-verb names (astrea_etiquetar_aplicar), and six unrelated English platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) mixed in. It is readable but not predictable enough for a reliable convention.
35 tools is well into the too-heavy range, especially because several of them are flattened actions that duplicate one another's descriptions and could have been single parameterized tools. The set is further bloated by platform-level tools like marketplace, authenticate, and connect that are unrelated to the Astrea legal domain.
The core process lifecycle is fairly well covered: create, edit, search, list, count, close, tag, and financial summaries exist. However, there are notable gaps: no task listing, no standalone client create/update/delete, no document list/delete, and no appointment update tool, which leaves several common workflows incomplete.