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 destructiveHint=false, but the description goes beyond by explaining the two modes (permanent vs. session-only) and that the token is a JWT. It does not mention potential side effects like rate limits or auth requirements, but given the simple auth purpose, this is adequate. No contradiction with 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 compact and informative, with two sentences that cover all necessary points: purpose, steps, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and provides no fluff.
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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main usage scenarios. It could be more complete by mentioning what the output or success response looks like, but for an auth tool this is not critical. The description is sufficient for an 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the token parameter as a JWT to be pasted for session-only login. It does not explicitly name the parameter in the description, but it clearly indicates its usage. This compensates for the schema's minimal documentation.
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 function: to authenticate the IDE agent with MCP.AI by either providing a token or obtaining a login link. It specifies the resource ('this server's config') and distinguishes between permanent and session-only login, which is distinct from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.
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?
It provides explicit usage instructions: log in in the browser, copy the access token, and either add it to server config for permanent access or paste it as a token argument for session-only. It also explains when to call with no args to get the link. This is clear and actionable guidance beyond the schema.
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.
Several tools overlap: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, authenticate covers the same auth flow, and marketplace bundles a report_bug subcapability plus one-off invocation that could replace the native der_sp_penalidades_consultar. Only the Portuguese-named query tool has a clearly distinct purpose.
Names mix English and Portuguese, single verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun forms (report_bug, show_version), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long domain-specific name (der_sp_penalidades_consultar). There is no consistent convention across the set.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the set is unbalanced: five platform utilities surround a single domain-specific query tool, and marketplace is a monolithic catch-all that bundles many operations into one entry.
The core DER SP penalidades consultation exists and platform lifecycle/auth is covered, but the domain surface is minimal: no credit/balance view, no query history, and no supporting domain actions. The marketplace tool can fill some gaps only indirectly.