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 indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about permanent vs session-only connections, the meaning of providing a token, and the behavior of returning a link when no token is given. It does not contradict the annotations and enhances transparency.
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 two sentences, densely packed with necessary information. It could be slightly better structured (e.g., separating the permanent vs session flows more clearly), but every sentence contributes value and there is minimal fluff.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers the essential flows: obtaining a token, using it permanently or for a session, and getting a link. It does not explicitly state the success/error response format, but for this simplicity level it is reasonably 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 schema provides only a 'token' string property with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT for session-only login, that it is optional, and that omitting it returns the login link. This gives complete semantic 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: authenticating IDE agents (MCP.AI) via browser login and access token. It identifies the resource (MCP.AI) and the action (log in, copy token). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'connect', which might also relate to connections.
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 detailed usage guidance: two methods (permanent header config vs session-only token), when to call with a token, and when to call with no args to get a link. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the context is clear and actionable.
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.
The tools are individually distinct, but the set mixes a single CAFIR-specific query with generic platform utilities (marketplace, connect, authenticate), making it unclear what the server is for. An agent might confuse connect with toolkit_info, and marketplace is an overloaded catch-all.
Names are inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), underscore-separated verb_noun (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and a long domain-specific name (cafir_imoveis_rurais_consultar) follow no common pattern.
While 7 tools is a reasonable number in general, only one tool actually addresses the CAFIR domain; the rest are platform housekeeping tools that feel out of place in a server named 'CAFIR', so the count is inflated for its apparent scope.
For a CAFIR-specific server, the only domain operation is a single query by CIB. There is no listing, search, or other rural-property functionality, leaving the core domain severely under-covered. The platform tools are complete, but they are not the intended focus.