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: it explains the effect of permanent vs. session-only login, and that calling with 'token' authenticates while calling with no args returns a link. This is useful behavioral insight. The annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description complements rather than contradicts them.
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 three sentences long and covers all essential points without excessive verbosity. It is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the two operational modes. Each sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly tighter.
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 is highly complete. It covers both authentication paths (permanent via config, session via token), explains the parameter, and provides the no-args behavior. No critical information is missing for the agent to use it correctly.
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 fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT, that it's optional, and that omitting it yields a login link. This gives the agent complete understanding of the parameter's meaning and usage.
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 defines the tool's purpose: authenticating a user to the MCP server for IDE agents. It uses specific actions ('log in', 'copy the access token', 'add', 'paste') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on token-based authentication flow. The purpose is unmistakable even without the tool name.
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 usage scenarios: adding the token to the server config for permanent connection, or pasting it for session-only login. It also explains how to call the tool (with token or with no args). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'connect', so it falls short of a 5.
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 are distinct, but 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, creating overlap. The single domain tool is clearly separated from platform utilities.
Names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun in both English (report_bug, show_version) and Portuguese (credito_pj_risco_consultar), plus bare nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). No consistent pattern or language.
The count of 7 is reasonable, but most are generic platform utilities rather than domain-specific tools. The one credit risk tool is the core, making the set feel slightly overburdened with meta-tools.
The core credit risk query is covered, but there are no additional analysis or reporting tools. The marketplace tool mitigates gaps by enabling on-demand tool discovery, but the server's own domain surface is thin.