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 declare idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the two modes (permanent vs. session), the fact that it can generate a login link, and that the config method is non-expiring. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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 three sentences and front-loaded with the purpose. It's slightly dense but every sentence provides necessary information (purpose, permanent config, session login). The structure is logical, moving from high-level to specifics.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage modes, parameter meaning, and behavior. It doesn't describe the return value or error cases, but for an authentication tool with no output schema, this is adequate.
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 only a 'token' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining the token is a JWT for session login, showing the exact call syntax, and clarifying that calling with no args returns a link. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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's purpose: to authenticate by logging in via browser and providing an access token, or getting a login link. It uses specific verbs like 'log in' and 'copy the access token', and distinguishes the token-based session login from the permanent config method. This differentiates it from siblings like 'connect'.
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 clear usage context: it explains when to use the config header for a permanent, non-expiring connection vs. pasting a token for session-only login, and how to call with no args to get the link. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared 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 distinct roles, but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace.list_tools overlap in reporting connection status and installed tools, which could cause an agent to call the wrong one. The single domain tool is clearly separate, but the platform tools have some fuzzy boundaries.
Naming is inconsistent: it mixes English and Portuguese (authenticate vs bacen_inabilitados_consultar), snake_case (report_bug, show_version) and single words (connect, marketplace), and uses an unusual object-verb order in the Portuguese tool name. No clear pattern is maintained across the set.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range. However, the server is mostly platform utilities with only one domain-specific tool, making it feel like a meta-server rather than a focused BACEN domain tool, though this is not severe enough to score lower.
The single domain operation (CPF lookup) is complete for its narrow purpose, and the platform tools cover authentication, status, discovery, and support well. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no batch query or detailed historical data for inabilitados), but not enough to cause agent failures.