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 discloses that the config approach creates a 'permanent, non-expiring connection' while pasting a token gives a 'session-only login', adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not explicitly cover error handling or token management, but it covers the main outcomes.
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 reasonably concise but packs a lot into a single run-on sentence with colons and commas. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be broken into clearer sentences.
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 auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main scenarios (permanent config, session token, and obtaining a link). It implies the response contains a link but does not detail error cases or return structure, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste, and the no-argument call to retrieve the link. This goes beyond the bare schema and clearly instructs how to invoke both modes.
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 is for authenticating IDE agents (Cursor, etc.) by logging in via browser and copying an access token. It specifies the action (authenticate), the resource (this server's config), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by describing the auth flow.
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 explicitly describes when to use the config header approach for a permanent connection vs. pasting a token for session-only login, and mentions calling with no args for a link. This provides clear alternatives and when to use each, meeting the 'when/when-not' criterion.
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 clear, distinct purposes: authentication, status check, quota query, marketplace discovery, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit overview. Only minor overlap exists between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' in terms of connection status reporting, but each has a distinct primary function.
Naming is inconsistent: 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version', 'toolkit_info' use camelCase, while 'detran_ma_multas_consultar' is snake_case. Verbs vary (authenticate, connect, report, show) with some noun-only names (marketplace, toolkit_info), undermining a predictable pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server's stated identity as 'DETRAN MA: Multas' clashes with the inclusion of six platform-level meta-tools and only one domain-specific tool. The count is appropriate for a generic platform server, but it feels excessive for the nominal domain focus.
For the domain of Brazilian traffic fines (DETRAN MA), only a single consult tool exists, with no support for updates, deletions, or listing distinct fine types. While platform tools cover meta-operations, the domain surface is severely underdeveloped given the server's name and purported purpose.