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?
The description reveals behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as the distinction between permanent non-expiring connections and session-only logins, and that calling with no args returns a link. Annotations (idempotentHint) are consistent with this.
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 somewhat verbose and runs-on with multiple clauses and parentheticals. It packs useful information but could be tightened without losing meaning.
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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the main usage scenarios, including the two authentication modes. It does not explicitly state return values, but 'get the link' implies the output, and no output schema is provided.
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 token parameter is explicitly described: 'paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "<jwt>" }'. Since the schema lacks descriptions, this fully compensates and adds 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to log in via browser and obtain an access token. It specifies the verb 'log in' and the resource 'access token', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 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?
It provides clear context on when and how to use the tool: either by permanently adding a header to config or by pasting a token for a session-only login. It also explains the two call patterns (with token or no args), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it.
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.
Tools like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all relate to connection/auth status, which could cause selection confusion. Meanwhile, marketplace is an extremely broad multi-action tool that overlaps conceptually with install and configure functions, though its description is detailed.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) mix with verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version), while cadin_estadual_consultar and toolkit_info do not follow a predictable style. This lack of a consistent convention makes the tool set feel disjointed.
With 7 tools, the count is within the typical well-scoped range. However, the mixture of platform management utilities and a single domain-specific query function makes the overall scope ambiguous, slightly reducing the appropriateness.
Given the server name 'CADIN Estadual', the tool surface is severely incomplete—there is only one query function with no support for listing states, bulk queries, or managing query history. If the intent is a platform management server, the marketplace tool covers many operations, but the naming suggests a domain-specific service, leaving major gaps.