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?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: token persistence semantics ('permanent, non-expiring' vs 'session-only') and no-arg behavior (return the login link). This adds useful context without contradicting the 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 front-loaded with the purpose and delivers actionable instructions in three compact sentences. The 'Best:'/'Or' structure makes the options scannable with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the full workflow: browser login, token retrieval, permanent vs session configuration, and no-arg behavior. The invocation semantics are complete and usable.
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 only provides a bare optional string token with 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully: it explains that token is a JWT for session-only login, and that omitting the token triggers the login-link flow. This is more than enough for 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?
The description clearly identifies the action (authenticate) and resource (MCP.AI), and explains the login/token workflow. It is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like connect or marketplace because it focuses entirely on access-token authentication.
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 options: permanent config header vs session-only token, and calling with no args to get the link. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus sibling tools, but the two modes are clearly differentiated.
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 purposes: authentication, connection status, vehicle query, marketplace, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. Minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info, both of which expose connection status, but they emphasize different aspects.
Naming is mixed: several tools use imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), while others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a Portuguese compound (detran_go_veiculo_consultar). This inconsistency makes the set feel less cohesive.
Seven tools is a reasonable count in general, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the DETRAN vehicle domain. The server's narrow purpose is diluted by infrastructure tools, making the count inappropriate for its stated scope.
The only domain-specific tool is a single query operation; there are no other vehicle-related actions (e.g., lookup by plate, vehicle history, or listing). The remaining tools address platform administration, leaving obvious functional gaps for any real DETRAN vehicle use case.