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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the permanent/non-expiring config approach versus session-only login, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not contradict annotations and gives enough transparency for an authentication tool.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, but it is a single long sentence with several clauses and alternatives. It is not bloated, yet better sentence separation would improve scannability for an agent.
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 one-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the main flow, the two usage modes, and the parameter semantics. It does not explicitly describe the response format, but the no-args behavior ('get the link') implies the return value sufficiently for this context.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter is an undocumented optional 'token'. The description compensates fully by explaining that 'token' is a JWT to paste for session-only login, and that omitting it triggers the link-generation flow. This adds meaning well beyond the bare 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: authenticate an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on authentication and token management, with explicit actions like 'log in in the browser, copy the access token.'
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 explicit usage guidance: add the token to server config for a permanent connection, or paste it for a session-only login. It also specifies exactly how to call the tool—with a token parameter or with no arguments to receive the login link—making the invocation path clear.
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 clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, domain-specific query, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit info. There is no overlap that would cause an agent to misselect.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use single words without separators (authenticate, connect, marketplace), while others use underscores (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, cfm_estabelecimento_consultar). There is no consistent verb-noun pattern and the mix of styles reduces predictability.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable and not excessive or overly thin. However, only one tool is domain-specific; the rest are generic platform utilities, which slightly dilutes the server's apparent focus.
Although the server is named for health establishments, it provides only a single query operation (cfm_estabelecimento_consultar) with no list, create, update, or delete capabilities. This is a significant gap that limits the domain coverage and forces agents to rely on external tools for common workflows.