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: calling with no args returns a login link, while providing a token authenticates. It notes the difference between permanent and session-only connections. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or destructiveHint, and adds context about token handling.
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 composed of three sentences, each adding value: purpose, best practice, and alternative. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, though the opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' is slightly verbose but still relevant context.
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 both invocation patterns (with/without token) and the token format. It explains the authentication flow sufficiently, though it doesn't detail error cases or response structure, which are not required given the minimal complexity.
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 only defines 'token' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description explains the token is a JWT access token and explicitly states it is optional ('with no args to get the link'), fully compensating for the lack of schema 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 states the tool authenticates for MCP.AI, providing specific usage: logging in via browser and copying an access token. It clearly distinguishes between permanent config-based auth and session-only token auth, which differentiates it from potential siblings 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?
It explicitly recommends the best practice (adding a header to the server config for a permanent connection) and the alternative (pasting a JWT for a session-only login). It also clarifies when to call with no args to get the link, giving clear context for each invocation mode.
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's ability to find MCPs for CPF queries overlaps with credito_negativo_consultar, and authenticate/connect both deal with authentication states, requiring careful reading of descriptions to avoid misselection.
Tool names mix English verbs, nouns, and a Portuguese compound phrase, with inconsistent patterns like bare verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version) alongside noun-based names (toolkit_info). This lacks a coherent convention.
7 tools is within a reasonable range, but the marketplace tool is a mega-tool covering many sub-actions (search, invoke, install, etc.) that could be split for clarity. Still, the count itself is not excessive.
The server's stated purpose (negative credit detail) is covered by only one tool (credito_negativo_consultar), while the remaining tools are generic platform utilities. Missing domain-specific operations such as report history, dispute handling, or credit limit management leave significant gaps.