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 provide minimal behavioral info (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that calling with 'token' does a session-only login, with no args returns a link, and that config-based tokens are permanent/non-expiring. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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, with the main purpose in the first sentence and clear breakdown of usage options in the remainder. Each sentence adds value, though the phrasing is slightly verbose (e.g., 'Best: add it to this server's config...'). Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential scenarios: permanent vs session login, and how to obtain the link. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it omits details about token expiration or error handling, which are not critical for basic usage.
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 has one optional 'token' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that it expects a JWT and its role in session-only authentication, and explicitly shows the call format '{ token: "<jwt>" }'. This gives the agent enough semantic understanding to use the parameter correctly, though it doesn't mention validation or error cases.
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: authenticating the IDE agent to MCP.AI by logging in and obtaining an access token. It specifies the verb (authenticate) and the resource (MCP.AI), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by focusing solely on the authentication 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?
The description explicitly explains when and how to use it: either add the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or paste a JWT for a session-only login, or call with no arguments to get a login link. It clearly communicates the three usage modes and their purposes, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose which.
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.
authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all touch auth/connection status, so an agent must read carefully to pick the right one. The DETRAN query tool and marketplace are clearly distinct, but the platform helpers blur together.
Names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese snake_case object-verb (detran_mt_veiculo_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun_verb convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but six are generic platform/meta helpers (auth, connect, marketplace, bug report, version, toolkit info) and only one is the named DETRAN vehicle domain. This makes the set feel padded and off-topic for a 'DETRAN MT: Veículo' server.
The core paid vehicle consultation flow is supported (authenticate, connect, market/checkout, consultar), so agents can complete a query. However, beyond that single query there are no other vehicle-domain operations (e.g., searching by different identifiers, listing query history, or checking credits), leaving the domain surface thin.