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 key behaviors such as the two authentication modes (permanent vs session-only) and the no-args behavior of returning a link. This adds context beyond the annotations and does not contradict the idempotentHint.
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 two-sentence description is dense yet concise, covering three authentication paths without redundant wording. It front-loads the purpose and organizes options with clear separators, earning every word.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main flows (permanent config, session token, link retrieval). It could be more explicit about session duration or return format, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter as a JWT for session-only login and clarifying that calling with no args gets a link. This gives complete semantic context for the optional parameter.
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's purpose as authenticating for MCP.AI with IDE agents, explaining the login flow and token options. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'connect' tool.
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?
Explicit usage instructions are provided for permanent config-based login, session-only token paste, and calling with no args to get a link. This gives clear context for when to use each invocation style, though it does not mention alternative tools.
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 clear, distinct purposes (authenticate, cvm_consultar, show_version), but connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, and marketplace is a catch-all with many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe, etc.) that could be confused with separate tools like report_bug. Descriptions help, but boundaries are not always crisp.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses snake_case with a Portuguese verb (cvm_consultar). Mixed conventions and unclear verb/noun styles make the set feel inconsistent.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable and not bloated. However, marketplace is an extremely large tool packing many capabilities, effectively expanding the surface. Still, the overall number is appropriate for a platform server that mixes marketplace functionality with a single domain query.
The server covers authentication, connection status, marketplace search/run/install/billing, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit logout or account/profile management), but for its apparent purpose, the surface is largely complete and workable.