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 idempotentHint=true (setting same token is idempotent). Description adds context about link retrieval with no args and the distinction between permanent vs session behavior. No contradictions; could elaborate on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing token).
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?
Single concise paragraph covering audience, two methods, and usage. Efficient but could benefit from bullet points for clarity. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
Missing output schema; description does not specify return value (e.g., success confirmation or error messages). For a tool that modifies auth state, knowing the response format would help the agent handle outcomes. Still adequate for basic invocation.
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?
Schema has one undocumented param 'token'. Description explains its use: provide the JWT after user pastes, or omit to get a link. This compensates for 0% schema coverage, but formatting or constraints (e.g., token format) could be added.
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?
Description clearly states the tool authenticates the user by obtaining an access token, distinguishing between two methods: permanent config vs session-only login. Verb+resource is specific, and the target audience is explicit.
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 on when to use each method: best practice is to add token to config for permanent connection, or paste for session-only. Also indicates calling with no args yields a link. No sibling tool performs this role.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: get/list for specific Bling entities (contacts, NFEs, sales orders, products, etc.) and separate platform tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.). No overlapping functionality.
Bling tools follow a consistent 'bling_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., bling_get_contato, bling_list_produtos), while platform tools use simple English names (authenticate, marketplace). The deviation is minor and explainable by the two distinct categories.
22 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range for a single server, but the number is justified by the comprehensive coverage of Bling entities and additional platform utilities. Not excessive.
The Bling tools are read-only (list/get only), lacking any create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap for a business management integration, limiting the agent's ability to perform full data lifecycle operations.