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?
Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that the config-based approach creates a permanent, non-expiring connection while pasting a token is session-only. It also reveals the login flow (browser -> copy token), adding meaningful behavioral context 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 single, information-dense paragraph. Every sentence adds value, but the structure is somewhat run-on and could be more scannable with bullets. Still, it is far from verbose and maintains focus.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main workflows: getting the link, pasting a session token, and configuring a permanent header. It does not explain return values in detail, but this is acceptable for an auth tool where the main outcome is subsequent authenticated access.
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 carries the full burden. It explicitly explains the 'token' parameter: call with { token: "<jwt>" } when the user pastes a token, or omit arguments to get the login link. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.
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: authenticating IDE agents (Cursor, etc.) by logging in and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from unrelated siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by specifying the exact resource (MCP.AI) and action (log in, copy 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: it explains the preferred permanent setup (add Authorization header to config) versus session-only login (paste token), and clarifies that calling with no args returns the login link. This gives the agent clear decision-making criteria.
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 tools are mostly distinct: compliance_apostas_consultar is the only domain-specific operation, while the rest serve platform management (auth, connectivity, marketplace, feedback, version, toolkit state). However, `connect`, `marketplace`, and `toolkit_info` overlap in providing status and access information, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one for simple state checks.
Naming is inconsistent: `authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`, and `show_version` are imperative verbs, while `marketplace` and `toolkit_info` are nouns, and `compliance_apostas_consultar` mixes Portuguese with a verb-at-end structure. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, and the mix of languages and formats reduces predictability.
Seven tools is within the typical 3–15 range, but the server's stated purpose ('Compliance de Apostas') suggests a domain-specific toolset, yet only one tool actually serves that domain. The rest are generic MCP platform utilities, making the count feel padded or misaligned with the server's name.
For a betting compliance server, the surface is severely incomplete: only a single CPF query tool exists, with no support for batch checks, reports, or other compliance workflows. If the server is intended as a platform management toolkit, it is more complete, but the name and primary domain tool suggest a different focus.