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 reveals the tool's behavior: it either returns a login link (when called with no args) or accepts a token (when provided). It does not explicitly mention side effects or idempotency, but these are covered by annotations, and the description does not contradict them.
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 somewhat verbose and includes extra context like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' and 'Best:' which could be streamlined. The main purpose is not front-loaded, and the structure reads more like user instructions than a concise tool description.
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 adequately covers the necessary usage context, including the two modes and the role of the token. It does not describe the output format or error cases, but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature, it is sufficiently complete.
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 description thoroughly explains the optional 'token' parameter, indicating it is used to complete authentication and that omitting it triggers the link retrieval. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's simple type definition.
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 indicates the tool is for authentication, providing instructions for both obtaining a login link and submitting a token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated to authentication, though the description is somewhat verbose and not a crisp statement of purpose.
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 explains when to use the tool versus the permanent config approach (session-only vs. permanent), and also details the two call modes (with or without args). It does not compare with sibling tools since none are authentication-related, but the guidance on usage modes is explicit enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.