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 annotations (idempotent, non-read-only), the description discloses behavior: calling with no args returns a login link, calling with token authenticates for the session, and it explains the permanent connection via config. This adds valuable operational context.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: purpose, best practice, and the alternative call pattern. No redundancy or 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?
Given the simple schema (1 optional param) and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases and outcomes (getting a link or authenticating). Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns when a token is provided, but the intent is clear.
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?
Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the single parameter `token`: it's optional, its format (JWT), and the two calling modes (with/without token). This compensates completely for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 the user via browser login and access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the dedicated authentication tool, and it provides the exact flow (log in, copy token, call with token or get link).
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 on when to use permanent config-based auth vs session-only token paste, and offers a best practice (config header) alongside the alternative. This is clear usage direction beyond simply naming the tool.
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 roles: authenticate handles login, connect reports connection status, cpf_receita_consultar does the actual CPF lookup. However, connect and toolkit_info both touch connection status, and authenticate/connect have some overlap, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming is inconsistent: English and Portuguese are mixed (cpf_receita_consultar vs. report_bug), some names are verbs (authenticate, connect) while others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses snake_case while others don't follow a clear pattern.
At 7 tools, the count is reasonable and within the typical well-scoped range. However, the server is named for CPF/Receita Federal but has only one domain-specific tool, with the rest being generic platform utilities, making the set feel slightly imbalanced for its stated purpose.
The CPF consultation tool provides basic lookup capability, but the domain surface is thin—there's no validation, batch, or historical querying. The marketplace tool mitigates this by allowing access to other MCPs, but for a server dedicated to CPF/Receita, the coverage is incomplete.