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 adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the two invocation modes, the persistence of the config-based approach, and the session-only nature of pasted tokens. This complements the idempotentHint and aligns with the non-destructive nature, providing useful operational insights.
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 a moderately sized paragraph with three sentences that all carry necessary information. It is not overly verbose, though the opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' is slightly ambiguous. Every sentence earns its place, but the structure could be slightly more front-loaded.
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 authentication tool with a single optional parameter, the description covers the main usage scenarios and clearly distinguishes the two modes (config vs. session). It does not specify the response format for the token invocation, but given the simplicity and absence of an output schema, it is adequately complete.
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 description thoroughly explains the token parameter: it is a JWT to paste, and the alternative of no args to get the link. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage, giving clear meaning to the parameter and its usage.
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 function: it provides a login link and accepts a JWT token for authentication, using specific verbs like 'log in' and 'call with'. It distinguishes the tool's role by explaining the config header method versus the session-only token method, making it distinct from siblings.
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 gives explicit usage guidance: adding the token to the server config for a permanent non-expiring connection, or pasting it for a session-only login. It also explains the no-args call to get the link. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', which slightly reduces differentiation.
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 distinct primary purpose, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, creating slight overlap. The rest are clearly separated by function.
Naming is highly inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), snake_case compounds (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese-language tool (cadin_sp_consultar) are mixed without any unifying pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named after a specific domain (CADIN São Paulo) while containing only one domain-specific tool and six generic platform tools, making the overall scope feel unfocused and bloated relative to the name.
The CADIN-specific surface is severely limited to a single consultation tool, with no additional operations like status checking or history. The platform management side is fairly complete, but the stated domain lacks meaningful coverage.