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?
Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the config method yields a non-expiring connection and the token method is session-only, and that no-args returns a link. However, it does not disclose exact return values or error behavior, leaving some gaps.
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 run-on paragraph that mixes user instructions with tool behavior, opening with a confusing label. It could be restructured into clear steps or bullets; while each sentence carries information, the lack of organization makes it harder to parse quickly.
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 primary usage patterns. However, it omits explicit return-value details for token-based calls and any error cases, leaving the tool's behavior only partially specified.
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 offers a single optional 'token' string with no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies that the token is a JWT for session login and that calling with no args provides a link, giving essential meaning to the parameter that the schema lacks.
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 indicates the tool handles authentication for IDE agents, with two modes (permanent config header and session token). It doesn't use a crisp 'verb+resource' structure and the opening 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' is more of a label, but it does distinguish the tool's role from siblings by explaining the auth flow.
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 explicit scenarios: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header' for permanent access, or 'paste it here' for a session, including calling with no args to get a link. It doesn't mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools explicitly, but the conditional guidance is actionable and clear.
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.
The credit analysis tool is clearly distinct, but several platform tools overlap: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all deal with connection/auth status, and marketplace is a mega-tool covering many actions. This overlap could cause an agent to select the wrong utility.
Names mix English verbs (authenticate, connect), English verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese compound (credito_pf_completo_consultar). There is no consistent naming pattern across the set.
Seven tools is within a typical range, but only one tool serves the credit analysis domain; the other six are generic platform utilities. The set feels padded relative to the server's stated purpose.
The single credit tool covers the full consultation: cadastral data, score, pending issues, and history. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct balance or query history), but the marketplace can handle payment top-ups indirectly.