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 adds context by mentioning 'permanent, non-expiring connection' and 'session-only login', which implies state changes. It does not explicitly state that authentication modifies server state, but it is reasonably transparent given the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive). Some side effects remain implicit.
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 well-structured: it opens with the purpose, then gives the primary login flow, followed by the two usage options. It is moderately long but each sentence adds value; no redundant fluff. The front-loaded purpose aids quick understanding.
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 description covers how to authenticate, but it does not explicitly state what the tool returns when a token is provided (e.g., success message or error). It only mentions 'get the link' for the no-args case. With no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity about return values and error handling.
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 defines only 'token' as a string (optional). The description clarifies that 'token' is a JWT used for session-only login, and that calling with no args returns a link. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it does not detail token format beyond '<jwt>'.
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: authenticating MCP.AI for IDE agents. It explains the login process and provides two authentication methods (permanent via config header, session-only via token). It is easily distinguishable 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?
The description gives explicit step-by-step instructions: log in, copy token, then either add to config or call with token. It also explains the 'no args' case for retrieving the link. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer one method over the other or compare with alternatives, though the distinction is implicit.
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 have overlapping purposes: 'authenticate' and 'connect' both deal with login/connection status, while 'marketplace' is a sprawling meta-tool that covers searching, describing, invoking, installing, and managing prompts—it overlaps with 'report_bug' (feedback) and 'show_version' (platform info) in providing platform functionality. The DETRAN-specific tool is distinct, but the rest are not cleanly separated.
Tool names are a mix of single-word verbs ('connect', 'authenticate', 'marketplace'), snake_case Portuguese for the DETRAN tool, and hyphenated terms like 'report_bug' and 'show_version'. The naming is inconsistent in style and doesn't follow a predictable verb_noun pattern, making it harder to infer what each tool does from its name alone.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range for a server, but the count is misleading: the 'marketplace' tool aggregates many distinct capabilities (search, describe, invoke, install, prompts) into one tool, which inflates the apparent coverage while the actual set of distinct functions is smaller and less cohesive.
The server's primary domain appears to be querying DETRAN AM fines, but aside from the single consultar tool, there's no support for other lifecycle operations (e.g., payment, dispute, or history). The other tools are platform utilities, not DETRAN-specific, so the surface is incomplete for the stated purpose of the server.