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 discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations, such as the distinction between permanent (via config header) and session-only login, and the fact that calling with no arguments returns a link. The annotations already indicate idempotency, and the description adds useful context about the login flow.
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 fairly compact for the amount of information it conveys, but it is a single dense paragraph. It could benefit from clearer structuring (e.g., bullet points for the two methods), but the information is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.
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 simple schema (1 optional param) and absence of output schema, the description covers the key aspects: how to authenticate, both permanent and session options, and how to invoke the tool. It doesn't describe the response format, but that's not critical without an output schema.
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 compensate. It explains the 'token' parameter by stating it should be a JWT, and clarifies that calling with no arguments gets the link. This gives meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about the token format and edge cases.
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 to the MCP.AI server. It uses the specific verb 'log in' and describes two modes (link generation and token usage). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'connect', so it doesn't fully distinguish alternatives.
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 clear usage context: it explains when to use the permanent header approach vs the session-only token approach. It gives step-by-step instructions for both scenarios. However, it doesn't mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'connect'.
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 clearly distinct purposes (authenticate, query registration, report bugs, show version), but connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace overlap somewhat in connection status and toolkit state. Detailed descriptions help disambiguate, but a few boundaries are blurry.
Tool names mix verb-first patterns (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with noun-first (marketplace, toolkit_info) and a Portuguese-style compound (confea_crea_consultar). There is no consistent naming convention, making the set feel haphazard.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range. However, the server's stated domain (CONFEA/CREA) is represented by only one tool, while the other six are generic platform utilities, making the count feel unbalanced for the stated purpose.
For an engineering registration domain, the server offers only a single lookup tool (confea_crea_consultar), with no additional operations like listing, updating, or verification. The remaining tools are unrelated to the domain, leaving the domain-specific surface severely limited.