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 indicate idempotent, non-read-only, non-destructive. The description adds context about permanent vs session-only login, and that no-args returns a login link. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral nuance beyond the safety profile.
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 paragraph of about 60 words, front-loaded with purpose and then explaining two usage options. Every clause adds value, though it could be structured with bullet points for clarity.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers the main use cases. However, it doesn't describe the response for token-based login (e.g., success/error) or any post-auth state, leaving some gaps given no output schema.
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 input schema only defines an optional token string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully explains the token's meaning (JWT) and both usage states: with token for session login, without for link retrieval, compensating entirely for schema gaps.
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 this tool is for login/authentication, explaining the flow: browser login, copy token, and call with token or without. It identifies the target (MCP.AI for IDE agents) but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 'connect', so clear but not fully differentiated.
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 guidance: it recommends adding the token to server config for permanent connection, and describes session-only login via the token argument. It also explains when to call with no args (to get the link), covering both modes. However, it doesn't mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection, and connect and toolkit_info both report status. The remaining tools (dap_pronaf_pj_consultar, marketplace, report_bug, show_version) have clear, non-overlapping purposes.
Naming is inconsistent: verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) mix with nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a Portuguese phrase 'dap_pronaf_pj_consultar' that doesn't follow any clear pattern. No consistent convention is applied across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a server that combines a domain-specific consultation function with platform utilities. It sits within the typical well-scoped range, though the scope is heavily weighted toward platform management rather than domain operations.
The domain purpose (DAP consultation by CNPJ) is fully covered by the single domain tool, and the marketplace tool provides access to a vast range of additional MCPs, making the overall surface quite complete. Platform management and feedback channels are also present, so no major gaps are evident.