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. The description adds context about session permanence, the browser login flow, and the two call variants (with/without token), but does not detail potential side effects like token storage or response format.
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, with a long first sentence combining multiple instructions. It could be split but remains readable and all content is relevant.
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 auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios and permanence trade-off. It lacks explicit return value details, but the essential information 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 provides no description for the token parameter, but the description fully explains it: the token is a JWT that the user pastes, and calling with no args retrieves the link. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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 with MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes two usage modes (permanent config vs session-only token) and gives concrete steps.
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?
Explicit guidance is provided: recommends adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, or passing it as a JWT for session-only login, with no-args to fetch the link. This clarifies when to use each approach.
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 tool serves a clearly distinct function: authentication, the BACEN query, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit state. There is no overlap in their purposes despite the marketplace tool's long description.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and one is snake_case with a reversed order (bacen_proibidos_consultar). This mixing of conventions makes naming unpredictable.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but six of them are platform-level utilities unrelated to the server's stated BACEN domain. The count feels inflated for a dedicated 'Proibidos BACEN' server, though it is not excessive.
The BACEN consultation is a simple query with no obvious missing CRUD operations, but the platform tools could benefit from additional management features (e.g., logout or billing details). The domain coverage is adequate but not exhaustive.