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 idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about token provisioning (permanent vs session) and that calling with no args returns a link, which is beyond annotations. It does not describe failure modes or side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations, so a mid-range score is appropriate.
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 somewhat verbose with an introductory phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.):' that could be trimmed. It front-loads the core action but then mixes config advice with usage examples, which could be structured better. It is not excessively long but not minimal either, warranting a middle score.
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?
With no output schema, the description should clarify expected returns. It mentions getting a link when called without args but does not state what the tool returns on success with a token (e.g., confirmation or status). It also does not address error conditions or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'connect'. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not complete.
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 coverage is 0% for the token parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains the token is a JWT, that it is optional (calling with no args is allowed), and describes usage patterns. This gives meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it could be more precise about the token format or expected value.
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 it is for authentication (log in, copy access token) and distinguishes the action as 'authenticate' for the server. It mentions the context of IDE agents and provides two modes (permanent via config, session via token), which clarifies its function. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'connect', so it misses a direct differentiation.
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 instructions: call with a token to authenticate, or with no args to obtain a login link. It also explains the permanent config option versus session-only, which helps the agent decide how to invoke it. It does not state when *not* to use this tool or point to alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
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 platform-level tools have overlapping boundaries: `authenticate`, `connect`, and `toolkit_info` all involve credentials/connection state in different forms, while `marketplace` is a catch-all that can invoke, install, and manage tools. The DETRAN-specific tool is distinct, but an agent could easily select the wrong meta-tool.
The names mix short English verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), noun-style tools (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), English verb-noun pairs (`report_bug`, `show_version`), and one Portuguese snake_case domain operation (`detran_ap_veiculo_consultar`). There is no consistent pattern an agent can rely on.
Seven tools is not excessive in raw count, but only one tool actually addresses the DETRAN vehicle domain; the rest are generic platform, auth, billing/catalog, and support utilities. The set feels padded for a single-purpose data lookup server while still being small enough to manage.
The apparent domain is a read-only official-vehicle consultation, so the single `consultar` operation plus the auth/support tools covers the core need without an obvious dead end. However, if there are related DETRAN queries or endpoint variations, they are not exposed, so completeness is slightly limited.