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 include idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: explains permanent vs session-only authentication, how the login process works (browser, copy token), and the config-based approach. It doesn't contradict annotations and goes beyond them by describing the authentication workflow.
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 yet information-dense. The first sentence states the context and purpose, the next gives the recommended permanent solution, and the last covers the session-only alternative. Every sentence adds necessary detail without fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers all invocation patterns (with token, without token), explains both authentication methods, and the workflow is fully understandable. No gaps remain.
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 has one optional string `token` with no description. The tool description fully compensates by explaining that `token` is a JWT for session-only login and that calling with no args returns the login link. This is essential meaning not present 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 states the tool's purpose: to authenticate the MCP server for IDE agents via browser login and token acquisition. It specifies the resource (authentication) and the action (log in, copy token), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.
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?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: recommends the permanent config approach with `Authorization: Bearer <token>` header, and gives the session-only alternative using the `token` parameter, including behavior when called with no arguments to get the link. This is clear when-to-use and alternatives.
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 are clearly distinct, but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace overlap on connection/status and installed MCP information. The sole domain-specific tool (cnpj_cadastral_consultar) is unambiguous.
Names mix English and Portuguese, verbs and nouns, and underscore styles (e.g., authenticate vs report_bug vs cnpj_cadastral_consultar). No consistent pattern is followed.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but six are platform-management utilities unrelated to the 'Cadastro PJ Básico' domain. The only domain-specific tool is a single query, making the set feel padded.
For its stated purpose, the CNPJ basic registration lookup is covered by one tool, but there are no additional operations like validation or search. The platform tools are extensive but unrelated to the domain label.