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 discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the permanent vs. session-only nature of the two login methods, and that calling with no args returns a link. This complements the idempotentHint annotation without contradiction.
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, spanning three sentences, but each sentence adds necessary context (the login flow, the preferred permanent method, the session-only alternative). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundant filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description explains the expected behavior: getting a link with no args and completing login with a token. It does not specify the exact return value for success/failure, but for a simple authentication tool this is adequate.
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 only defines an optional 'token' string with no description. The description explains that the token is a JWT pasted by the user, and clarifies the two call patterns (with token or no args). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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: authenticate with MCP.AI for IDE agents. It details the login process and distinguishes between permanent config-based auth and session-only token-based auth, which differentiates it 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?
The description gives explicit instructions on two usage paths: adding a header to config for permanent access, or passing a token for session-only login. It also explains calling with no args to get a link. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives like 'connect'.
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 clearly distinct purposes: authenticate handles auth token, connect reports connection status, marketplace manages MCP catalog operations, and cff_cadastro_consultar is the only domain query tool. However, connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, and marketplace's many internal actions (search, describe, invoke) could cause ambiguity with toolkit_info's list of installed MCPs.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use plain verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some use noun-style (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool cff_cadastro_consultar uses a different underscore-separated pattern. No coherent verb_noun or noun_verb convention is followed.
Seven tools is a moderate count, but for a server named 'Conselho Federal de Farmácia: Cadastro' only one tool is domain-specific. The remaining six are generic platform utilities, making the set feel under-scoped for the apparent purpose and heavily weighted toward infrastructure rather than the core domain.
The domain surface is severely incomplete: cff_cadastro_consultar provides only a single consultation operation, with no update, list, or administrative tools. While platform utilities (marketplace, authenticate, etc.) are comprehensive, they do not address the stated purpose of cadastro queries, leaving agents with a dead end for any non-consultation need.