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 annotations: the token is non-expiring when added to config, session-only when pasted, and calling with no args returns a link. It aligns with the idempotentHint annotation (calling with same token should be idempotent) and does not contradict any annotations. It adds useful context about token lifecycle.
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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is a bit dense with multiple instructions in three sentences, but each sentence adds valuable information. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it is not overly verbose.
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 essential flows (permanent config vs session token, no-args behavior). It does not state what the tool returns after authentication, which would be helpful, but the lack of an output schema lowers the bar. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?
The schema has one optional parameter (token) with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by explaining when to include the token ('call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes') and when to omit it ('or with no args to get the link'). This gives complete semantic meaning for the parameter.
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 to MCP.AI for IDE agents by obtaining and using an access token. It mentions specific actions (log in, copy token, call with token or no args) that make it distinct from generic tools, though it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like 'connect'.
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 guidance on when and how to use the tool: it recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or pasting the token for a session-only login. It also explains the no-args behavior to get the login link, giving clear context for different scenarios.
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.
Tools are functionally distinct: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc. serve clearly different purposes and the lone CEP query tool is unambiguous. Minor overlap exists between connect and authenticate but descriptions help separate them.
All names are lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (connect, authenticate), some verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and the domain tool uses reversed noun_noun_verb structure (correios_cep_consultar). The convention is readable but lacks a cohesive scheme.
Seven tools is a reasonable count overall, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated 'Correios: CEP' purpose, leaving only one domain-specific tool. The count feels padded and dilutes focus.
For a CEP service, only a single lookup tool exists, with no additional operations like batch search, address validation, or postal code lists. The generic tools do not fill these gaps, making the surface incomplete for the domain while the platform tools add noise.