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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral insight beyond the annotations by explaining that config-based tokens are permanent and non-expiring, while pasted tokens are session-only. It also clarifies the idempotent behavior (calling with no args returns a link, with a token performs login). Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true; the description complements this 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 concise and well-structured, using a colon and clear sentences to convey the flow. It front-loads the key information (browser login, copy token) and then details the two invocation modes, ensuring every sentence earns its place without fluff.
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 parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: authentication flow, token handling, persistence options, and the no-args fallback. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool without additional information.
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 coverage is 0% and the token is undocumented, but the description compensates by explaining the token is a JWT pasted by the user and how to pass it in the call. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could have been even more explicit about the format or validation.
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: authenticate users by providing a browser login link, accepting a pasted token for session-only login, or suggesting a permanent config header. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only authentication-related tool among the listed siblings, with a specific verb and resource.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for logging in and obtaining/pasting tokens) and contrasts it with permanent config-based authentication versus session-only token paste. It also explains the alternative of using the config header, helping an agent decide the appropriate invocation.
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 tool set contains one domain-specific tool (detran_pe_veiculo_consultar) and several platform utilities. Most have distinct purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, which could cause minor confusion. Overall, the tools are well-separated.
Tool names mix English and Portuguese, and use inconsistent structural patterns. For example, 'marketplace' is a noun while 'authenticate' is a verb, and 'detran_pe_veiculo_consultar' follows a Portuguese naming convention. This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the server's specific name suggests a focus on DETRAN PE vehicle data, yet only one tool directly addresses that. The remaining tools are generic platform utilities, which dilutes the server's apparent purpose.
The only domain-specific tool is a single query operation for DETRAN PE vehicles. No other vehicle-related operations are present, such as lookup by different identifiers, history, or fines. The platform utilities are comprehensive but do not contribute to the data domain, leaving the DETRAN coverage extremely thin.