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 key behaviors beyond the annotations: no args yields a login link, passing a token enables session-only authentication, and config-based tokens produce a permanent non-expiring connection. Annotations already mark it as idempotent and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them.
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 the tool's purpose. The second sentence is slightly long but every part contributes to how authentication should be performed.
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 covers the main calling patterns: no args and token-provided. It could mention what the response looks like or error cases, but the essential usage context is present.
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 only defines an optional 'token' string, but the description explains that it expects a JWT access token copied from the browser and that it provides session-only login. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw 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 identifies the tool as an authentication flow for IDE agents: log in in the browser, copy the access token, and either add it to config or pass it as a token. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like 'connect', but the purpose is 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 modes: call with no args to get a login link, or call with a token for session-only login. It also explains the recommended alternative of adding the token to server config for a permanent connection. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but the guidance is clear.
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.
Each calculo_* tool targets a distinct legal/financial area (rent, alimony, FGTS, criminal sentencing, etc.), and their descriptions cite specific statutes that make the purpose clear. The only mild ambiguity is that calculo_atualizar and calculo_indice both handle generic monetary correction, while some INSS/FGTS tools share 'refund plus correction' semantics, but the specialized names avoid serious confusion.
The 16 domain tools follow a consistent 'calculo_<topic>' snake_case pattern, but calculo_atualizar uses a verb where the rest use nouns. The six platform tools break the pattern entirely with short English names (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), resulting in two readable but distinct naming conventions.
At 22 tools, the set is in the heavy range, and while the 16 legal calculators each justify their place, the six unrelated MCP platform utilities bloat the count for a server named 'Atualização Monetária'. The breadth of the legal calculators makes this borderline rather than excessive, but the overall scope is less focused than a well-scoped 10-15 tool server.
The toolkit covers a remarkably wide set of Brazilian legal calculations: monetary correction, index factors, alimony, labor severance, FGTS, INSS refunds, bank contract revisions, criminal sentencing, prison progression, family division, retirement benefits, and contribution time. Minor gaps exist, such as no standalone general-interest calculator and no OCR for FGTS statements yet, but agents can work around these with the generic tools.