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?
It discloses behavior beyond annotations: no args returns a link; token performs a session login; config-based header provides a permanent non-expiring connection. This adds meaningful context to the idempotent and non-read-only 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 information-dense but slightly run-on, mixing user instructions (add to config) with tool call semantics. While every sentence earns its place, it could be better structured into separate steps for clarity.
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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, it covers all main usage scenarios: link generation, token submission, and config-based permanent connection. However, it does not specify what the tool returns on a successful token submission, leaving a minor gap.
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 description explains the optional 'token' parameter as a JWT pasted by the user, and clarifies that omitting it returns the login link. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 this is an authentication tool for MCP.AI IDE agents, explaining the login flow and token handling. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on token acquisition and session vs. permanent configuration.
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?
It provides explicit guidance: call with no args to get a login link, or with a token (JWT) for session-only login. It also recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, giving clear alternatives and when to use each.
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 distinct purposes, but marketplace is a broad meta-tool that overlaps with connect and toolkit_info for managing connections and installations, and authenticate/connect are closely related.
Names mix conventions: verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_only (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese snake_case phrase (credito_dossie_consultar). No consistent pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but only one tool directly serves the credit dossier purpose; the other six are generic platform utilities that seem out of scope for a specialized server.
The credit domain is covered by only a single query operation with no supporting operations (e.g., history, batch, management). The rest of the tools are unrelated, leaving the core domain underdeveloped.