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 include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context about non-expiring vs session-only connections and the browser login flow. It does not contradict any 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 slightly long but well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose and clear 'Best:' and 'Or' options. Every sentence is informative, though it could be tightened without losing value.
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 an authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow: browser login, token optional, link return behavior. It does not explicitly describe success/failure response format, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Input schema has one optional 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description explains that token is a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and that omitting the argument returns a login link, adding essential meaning beyond the 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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: logging in via browser and obtaining an access token for MCP.AI IDE agents. It specifies the resource and action, and differentiates from siblings by detailing two authentication modes (permanent config vs session-only).
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?
Provides clear instructions on when to use each mode: permanent header config vs session-only token pasting, and explicitly tells the agent to call with no args to get the link or with a token to authenticate. It lacks an explicit comparison to alternatives like 'connect' but the usage context is well-defined.
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 role: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit inspection, and CEP lookup. There is minor overlap between connect and toolkit_info (both show connection status) and between authenticate and marketplace (both handle credentials), but descriptions are detailed enough to avoid misselection.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (busca_cep_consultar). Mixing languages and styles creates confusion about the naming convention.
Seven tools is a well-scoped count for a platform-style server that handles authentication, marketplace, connection management, and a core CEP lookup. Each tool serves a distinct function and none feels extraneous.
For the apparent CEP domain, the palette is thin: only one tool (busca_cep_consultar) and it only maps address to CEP, lacking a reverse CEP-to-address lookup. The platform tools are fairly complete for managing MCPs, but the domain-specific coverage has a notable gap.