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 indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds context about session persistence (permanent vs session-only) and the link retrieval behavior. It does not detail side effects like token replacement or invalidation, but the added session-duration context goes beyond the structured annotations.
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 moderately long but every sentence contributes useful information about the two login modes and the config option. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it is not padded or repetitive.
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?
It covers the main use cases, invocation patterns, and token handling. It does not explicitly describe return values or error scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
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 a single 'token' property with no description (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It fully explains that the token is a JWT, how to use it in a call, and the no-args behavior, adding essential meaning that the schema lacks.
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, explaining how to log in and obtain/use an access token. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing specifically on authentication, not other actions.
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 instructions for two scenarios: permanent connection via config header, and session-only via token argument. It also clarifies that calling with no arguments retrieves the login link. It does not mention alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the context is unambiguous.
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 set mixes a single domain-specific tool with several generic platform utilities. connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate overlaps with connect's authentication flow, causing confusion about which tool to use for login/connection status.
Tool names are inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese snake_case (auxilio_emergencial_consultar). No predictable pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but most tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are unrelated to the server's implied purpose of consulting Auxílio Emergencial. The count feels padded with platform utilities rather than domain-relevant functionality.
For the domain suggested by the server name, only one operation exists (auxilio_emergencial_consultar). There are no batch, update, or other related operations, and the other tools don't contribute to domain coverage, leaving obvious gaps for any real-world use case.