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 transparently explains side effects: initiating a browser login, accepting a token, or returning a link. It mentions the permanent non-expiring config option and acknowledges session-only behavior. Annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) align with the description, and no contradiction exists. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the schema.
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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It's structured into two usage modes, which is helpful. However, it includes some redundant phrasing (e.g., 'log in in the browser' vs. 'user pastes') that could be trimmed without losing clarity. Still, every sentence adds practical value.
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 the essential flows (browser auth, token-based login, permanent config) but does not mention return values or session expiration. Given there is no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what to expect (e.g., a URL or success message). Slightly incomplete but adequate for a single-parameter 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?
With 0% schema description coveragechers the schema only defines 'token' as a string. The description fully compensates: it explains the token is a JWT to be pasted for session-only login, and that omitting arguments yields a login link. This is a complete semantic explanation of the parameter and its optionality.
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: authenticate an IDE agent to MCP.AI. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI) and the action (log in, obtain token, configure). It distinguishes itself by detailing the browser login flow and two methods (permanent header config vs. session token), making its function unambiguous relative to generic sibling names like 'connect'.
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 patterns: can be called with a token for session-only login or with no args to get a login link. It also recommends the permanent header approach. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'connect' or state when NOT to use this tool, so slightly below full marks.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: authenticate handles token login, connect checks provider status, detran_df_debitos_consultar queries debts, marketplace searches/executes MCPs, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, and toolkit_info lists toolkit state. There is minor overlap between authenticate and connect (both deal with connection/auth) and between marketplace and toolkit_info (both involve MCP discovery), but the descriptions are clear enough to avoid major confusion.
All tool names are lowercase with underscores, but they do not follow a consistent pattern. Some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and detran_df_debitos_consultar mixes a domain prefix with a verb at the end, using Portuguese rather than English. This inconsistency reduces predictability.
With 7 tools, the count is not extreme, but the scope is mismatched to the server's stated purpose ('DETRAN DF: Débitos'). Only one tool is actually related to DETRAN debts; the other six are generic platform utilities (authentication, marketplace, feedback, etc.). This feels like a general-purpose MCP platform server rather than a focused debt-consultation server, making the tool set inappropriate for the apparent domain.
For a server named 'Débidos', the only domain-specific operation is detran_df_debitos_consultar, which provides a single consultation action. There are no other debt-related operations such as listing, filtering, or paying debts, and the rest of the tools are unrelated to the domain. This is a severely incomplete surface for the stated purpose.