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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with (no contradiction). The description adds context about the browser login flow and token handling, but doesn't disclose details like whether the token is stored, expiration, or side effects beyond the session. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then explains the two usage modes. It's efficient, though slightly run-on; every sentence adds 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential flow: browser login, token acquisition, and both permanent and session-based usage. It's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention what the response contains (e.g., success message or link).
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste for session-only login, and clarifies that calling with no args returns the login link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it doesn't specify token format validation or error handling.
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: to authenticate an IDE agent with MCP.AI by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the authentication entry point, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 provides clear usage context: it explains the two modes (permanent via config header, session-only via token argument) and when to call with or without arguments. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.
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.
The vehicle lookup tool is clearly distinct, but several platform tools overlap in responsibility: connect, authenticate, and toolkit_info all deal with connection/auth/toolkit status, and marketplace can also be used to route to domain lookups. The verbose descriptions help, but an agent could still confuse which meta-tool to use in a given situation.
Tool names are generally lowercase and readable, but they mix bare verbs (connect, authenticate), verb+noun pairs (show_version, report_bug), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and an unusually ordered domain name (detran_ms_veiculo_consultar). There is no single, predictable naming convention across the set.
Seven tools is not an unreasonable raw count, but only one of them is vehicle-domain-specific; the rest are platform/marketplace/auth/status infrastructure. The set feels like a platform wrapper with a single DETRAN tool bolted on, so the count is borderline rather than well-balanced.
The server exposes only one DETRAN/vehicle operation, so the domain surface is quite thin for a service named after DETRAN MS vehicle data. There are no explicit secondary operations covering other vehicle-related queries, and the remaining tools are platform management rather than domain functionality. The marketplace tool may help route to other services, but the server's own dedicated domain coverage is limited.