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 state idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond these: calling with no args returns a login link, and passing a token authenticates for the session. It explains the flow clearly without contradicting annotations.
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 a bit lengthy but front-loaded with the target audience ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') and flows logically from permanent setup to session usage. Every sentence adds useful information, with no 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases and invocation methods. It doesn't mention potential errors or post-auth state, but it's adequate for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.
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%, so the description must explain the 'token' parameter. It does so by stating it should be a JWT ("<jwt>") and used for session-only login. This gives sufficient meaning for a single optional parameter, though it doesn't elaborate on format or validation.
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 mechanism: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token.' It explains the purpose and the two modes (permanent via config, session-only via token). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 'connect', but the focus on authentication is unambiguous.
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?
Provides explicit guidance for both usage scenarios: adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for a session-only login. It also states how to invoke the tool (with or without token). It doesn't reference alternatives like 'connect', but the guidance covers when and how to use this tool effectively.
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 clear, distinct roles: authenticate handles login, marketplace handles discovery/execution, report_bug handles feedback, etc. However, connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, which could cause some confusion.
Naming convention is highly inconsistent. The domain tool uses Portuguese snake_case (cnh_situacao_consultar), while others use English verbs (authenticate, connect) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). No consistent verb_noun pattern exists.
With 7 tools, only one is domain-specific (cnh_situacao_consultar); the other six are generic platform utilities. The count feels bloated for the stated CNH purpose and under-invests in the actual domain functionality.
The CNH domain is covered only by a single consultation tool, with no additional operations or complementary features. The platform tools are unrelated to CNH, leaving the domain surface severely thin for a server named 'Situação da CNH'.