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 explains behaviors beyond the annotations: it distinguishes permanent vs session-only auth, mentions the browser-based login flow, and specifies that no args returns a link. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with these, adding useful context about token persistence.
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 long but every sentence serves a purpose: explaining the login flow, recommended permanent setup, and session-only alternative. It is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose before diving into mechanics.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the important use cases and invocation patterns. It could mention success/error behavior or what the login link response contains, but the core interaction is sufficiently explained.
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?
Though schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and that omitting it yields the login link. This adds meaningful semantic meaning beyond the bare 'string' type in 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 identifies the tool as an authentication flow: logging in via browser and using the access token. It states the exact action ('log in', 'copy the access token') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its authentication-link and token-acceptance behavior.
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: best practice is adding the token as a permanent config header; session-only login is achieved by passing { token: ... }; no arguments produces the login link. It clearly defines when to use each mode and how to invoke the 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.
Multiple tools deal with connection/status (authenticate, connect, toolkit_info) with overlapping responsibilities, making it unclear when to use which without reading long descriptions. The marketplace tool is also overloaded with many roles (search, invoke, install, prompts), blurring boundaries further.
Naming mixes imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug) with nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info) and one oddly prefixed domain tool (cfbm_cadastro_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun or other clear pattern, making the set feel haphazard.
At 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but 5 of the 7 are platform meta-tools that could likely be consolidated or are peripheral to the stated registration domain. The count is not extreme but the composition feels heavier than necessary.
The server's domain focus appears to be querying official Brazilian biomedicine registration records, yet only one tool (cfbm_cadastro_consultar) addresses this, with no related operations like history, listing, or structured data output. The remaining tools are about the platform itself, leaving the actual domain surface severely under-covered.