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 adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: calling with no args returns a login link, calling with a token enables session-only login, and server-config header provides a non-expiring connection. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or other annotations, and offers insight into expected outcomes.
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, reasonably sized paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then covers the two usage modes. It contains some extra context like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' but every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's usage. Slightly wordy, but still concise and well-structured.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough detail about how to invoke it and what to expect (link, session login, permanent header). It covers the full workflow reasonably well, though it doesn't explicitly describe the response format after token submission. The low complexity makes this sufficient.
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?
Although the schema only defines 'token' as a string with no description, the tool description fully compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT to paste after the user provides it, and that omitting it returns the login link. This gives complete semantic meaning for the only parameter, despite 0% schema_description_coverage.
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 is for authenticating with MCP.AI via browser login and obtaining an access token. It explains the two invocation modes (no args to get the link, or with token for session login). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'connect' or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 gives clear context on when to use each mode: permanent connection via server config header versus session-only login via token. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools, but the guidance on permanent vs session usage is a valuable contextual signal.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate handles login/token, connect reports connection status, crcp_certificado_consultar is the only domain-specific query, marketplace is a meta-catalog, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, and toolkit_info describes the toolkit state. No two tools appear to perform overlapping functions.
Tool names mix conventions: several are single verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a domain-specific verb phrase in Portuguese (crcp_certificado_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern or language, and the names do not follow a predictable structure.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable for a server that combines a single-domain query with platform management utilities. The number is within the typical range and each tool serves a purpose, though the domain-specific functionality is minimal.
The CRCP domain is limited to a single query operation (crcp_certificado_consultar), which may be sufficient for read-only certificate lookups but lacks any other domain interactions. Platform aspects are well covered (auth, connect, toolkit info, bug reporting, versioning, and a marketplace for additional tools), so the overall surface is not severely incomplete, but the CRCP-specific coverage feels thin.