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?
Adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the browser login flow, token usage, and the distinction between permanent and session logins. Does not contradict annotations and leverages idempotentHint appropriately.
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?
Three sentences, each dense with actionable information. Front-loaded purpose, then usage modes. No redundancy or filler.
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?
Covers both invocation paths, expected input, and implicit return (link). Lacks error handling details, but with no output schema, the description provides sufficient guidance for a simple auth tool.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the single 'token' parameter: it's an optional JWT for session login, and absence yields a link. This exceeds schema value and guides correct invocation.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: authentication via browser login and token handling. It specifies the resource (access token) and process, distinguishing from unrelated siblings like 'report_bug' or 'show_version'.
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?
Provides explicit usage instructions for two modes: permanent config header (outside tool) and session login via token or no-arg link retrieval. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear given the focused domain.
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 clearly distinct roles, but `marketplace` overlaps with `report_bug`, `toolkit_info`, and `connect` by exposing similar actions like report_bug, list_tools, and connect links. The detailed descriptions reduce but do not eliminate the ambiguity about which entry point an agent should call.
Naming mixes single-word verbs like `authenticate` and `connect` with snake_case compound names like `report_bug`, `show_version`, and `toolkit_info`, while the domain tool `der_ba_nada_consta_consultar` uses a unique, longer pattern. The names are readable and lowercased, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range and each utility has a plausible role in the platform workflow. However, `marketplace` is a multi-action monolith that could easily be split into several separate tools, and some utilities are partially redundant, so the count is only slightly less clean than ideal.
The core DER BA Nada Consta consultation is covered by `der_ba_nada_consta_consultar`, and the platform utilities provide authentication, connection status, toolkit info, and support. The main gap is that credit/balance visibility and top-up are only handled indirectly through `marketplace` returned links rather than dedicated tools, but the primary consult workflow is usable.