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?
Description explains that calling with no args returns the link, and with token authenticates. While annotations provide idempotent hint, the description adds context about token types and permanent vs session behavior. It could mention side effects like token validation but is largely transparent.
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?
Description is moderately long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose and then gives usage instructions. Not overly verbose, but could be condensed slightly without losing information.
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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers both usage patterns and prerequisites. Some detail on error handling or expiration could be added, but it's adequate for an authentication tool.
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 only parameter 'token' is explained as a JWT for session-only login. Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining the token's purpose and format.
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: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and provides two modes of authentication. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing solely on authentication, unlike connect or marketplace.
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?
Explicitly explains when and how to use: add token to config for permanent connection, paste for session, or call with/without token to get link. Also differentiates between the config approach and the session-only approach, giving clear context.
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 distinct purposes, but marketplace is a multi-purpose hub that overlaps with connect and toolkit_info for managing MCPs and could confuse agents discerning current state vs. discovery/run capabilities. The primary domain tool (detran_pb_licenciamento_consultar) is clear, but the platform-level tools have some boundary overlap.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case verbs (detran_pb_licenciamento_consultar, show_version, report_bug), some are single-word nouns without verbs (connect, marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses an imperative (authenticate). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
7 tools is a reasonable count for a server that combines a specific domain query tool with platform meta-tools (auth, marketplace, bug reporting, version checks). It is slightly heavy because several tools are housekeeping rather than domain features, but still within an acceptable range.
The domain surface is severely limited: only one tool for the stated purpose (consulting DETRAN PB licensing), with no supporting tools for fetching details, history, or related vehicle operations. The remaining tools focus on platform management rather than the domain, making the server feel incomplete for its primary claim.