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 distinguishes 'permanent, non-expiring connection' from 'session-only login' and specifies that calling with no args returns a link. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and provides useful operational detail.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, and each sentence adds necessary info about the two auth modes. It is slightly dense but every part earns its place.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the full workflow: getting the link, using a token for session login, and permanent header configuration. It is complete for an authentication tool.
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's token property has zero description, but the description fully explains its semantics: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes', and clarifies optionality with 'no args to get the link'. This completely 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 authenticates IDE agents for MCP.AI, describing the login flow with specific verb 'log in' and resource 'MCP.AI'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'connect', though the target audience ('IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)') provides some context.
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?
It gives explicit usage instructions: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header' for permanent connection, or 'paste it here for a session-only login' with token, or 'no args to get the link'. This clearly explains when to use each mode, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use 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.
The domain tool 'cnd_imovel_rural_consultar' is clearly distinct, but the platform tools overlap: 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, and 'marketplace' is a catch-all for searching, invoking, and managing MCPs. Descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries between these utility tools are not always sharp.
Tool names mix styles: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), and a long Portuguese snake_case name (cnd_imovel_rural_consultar). There is no consistent pattern, and the language mix (English vs Portuguese) adds to the inconsistency.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but only one tool serves the server's stated domain ('CND Imóvel Rural'). The other six are generic platform utilities, making the set feel bloated with meta-tools rather than focused on the certificate service.
For the domain of issuing a negative certificate for a rural property, the single 'cnd_imovel_rural_consultar' tool covers the core operation. There are no obvious missing domain operations (e.g., no need for update or delete). However, the platform tools are unrelated to the domain, which slightly detracts from the overall completeness.