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 and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds context about the token being non-expiring for config-based auth and session-only for pasted tokens, which is useful behavioral information beyond the 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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It provides actionable steps in a compact form, though it could be slightly more structured with clear separation of the two usage modes.
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 scenarios and provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains both permanent and session-based authentication, which is complete for this tool.
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 one optional parameter 'token' with no description. The description explains that the token is a JWT to be pasted, and that calling with no args returns a link. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but the schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates. However, it doesn't detail the token format or validation beyond 'jwt'.
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 the user for MCP.AI by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 explicit usage scenarios: either add the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or paste it here for a session-only login. It also explains when to call with no args to get the link, giving clear context for when to use this tool.
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 purposes, but 'authenticate' and 'connect' both involve authentication flows, and 'toolkit_info' overlaps slightly with 'connect' regarding status. The descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate them, but the boundary between these administrative tools could lead to some mis-selection.
Names use consistent snake_case, but conventions vary: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) while others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). The domain-specific 'cade_processos_consultar' breaks the pattern by mixing a proper noun with a verb. Overall, the mixture is readable but not uniform.
Seven tools is within the ideal range and each earns its place for platform management. However, the server is titled 'CADE: Processos' yet only one tool is domain-specific, making the count feel imbalanced. A slightly smaller number of utility tools would better match the apparent purpose.
The server offers only a single domain operation ('cade_processos_consultar') for what appears to be a legal processes server. There are no list, get-details, or workflow operations beyond the one query, leaving significant gaps for common use cases. The rest of the tools are unrelated to the domain, focused on platform administration.