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 context beyond annotations by explaining the permanent vs session-only behavior, the JWT token format, and the config header option. It doesn't exhaustively cover all side effects but adequately discloses key behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 content-dense and every sentence serves a purpose, but the phrasing 'log in in the browser' is awkward and the structure could be more organized. Despite this, it remains reasonably concise for the information conveyed.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers both invocation modes and the permanent config alternative thoroughly. It doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns when a token is provided, which is a minor omission given the lack of an output schema, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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 that the 'token' parameter is a JWT for session login and that omitting it triggers a link response. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, adding significant meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.
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 to MCP.AI for IDE agents, specifying a browser login and token retrieval. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on auth and describing two invocation modes (with token or no args), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly recommends using server config for a permanent, non-expiring connection, and using the tool for session-only login. It provides clear instructions on when to call with a token vs no args, effectively guiding the agent on correct usage and alternatives.
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 consultation tool is distinct, but the presence of generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) alongside it creates context confusion. Authenticate and connect have related purposes, and marketplace is a broad meta-tool that overlaps with the server's overall capability.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: most are simple English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug) or nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), but the core domain tool is a long Portuguese-style 'credito_pj_limite_consultar' with a reversed order. Mixing languages and conventions makes naming unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server's stated purpose is 'Limite de Crédito PJ' and only one tool (credito_pj_limite_consultar) directly addresses that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the scope feel mismatched and bloated for a domain-specific server.
For a credit limit analysis server, there is only a single operation available. No history, management, or supporting credit-domain tools exist. While the marketplace tool could theoretically fill gaps, it is not domain-specific, so the surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose.