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 indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about non-expiring vs session-only login and that calling with no args returns a link, which supplements the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.
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 single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary details. It could be split into clearer steps, but every sentence carries useful information, making it reasonably concise.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains input behavior and expected outcomes (link or session login). It also mentions a permanent configuration option, which adds contextual completeness. Minor gaps: no explicit mention of error cases or response format.
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 has only a 'token' string with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by explaining that token is a JWT pasted by the user for session login, and that omitting it yields a login link. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw 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's purpose: to authenticate users for MCP.AI by either providing a login link or accepting a JWT token for session login. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning IDE agents and authentication 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 provides explicit guidance on how to use the tool: call with no args to get a link, or call with a token for session-only login. It also recommends a permanent configuration via header, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'connect'.
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 authenticate and connect both relate to authentication and connection status, which could cause confusion. Marketplace is a catch-all for many sub-functions, making it unclear when to use it versus other tools.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are English verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a Portuguese snake_case function (dap_pronaf_pf_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun or stylistic pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a server that combines platform utilities with a domain-specific query. However, the marketplace tool is a mega-tool that could be split into multiple tools, slightly inflating the effective surface.
The server covers platform operations well (auth, connection, version, bug reporting, toolkit info) but lacks domain-specific operations beyond the single consultation tool. There are no update or delete operations for DAP data, but that may be outside the server's intended scope.