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?
Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds useful behavioral context: the no-arg call returns a login link, pasted tokens are session-only, and config-based tokens are permanent/non-expiring. This clarifies the persistence semantics of the operation without contradicting the annotations.
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 compact and packed with useful instructions. The opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' is slightly unnecessary, but the rest is front-loaded with the core auth flow and earns its place. It is dense but not bloated.
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?
For a simple one-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: obtaining a link, passing a token, and the difference between permanent and session-only login. It could mention error cases or what the tool returns, but it is otherwise complete for typical agent use.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining the 'token' parameter. It does so by identifying the token as an access token/JWT, showing the exact call shape, and clarifying that omitting it returns a login link. This is meaningful semantic information beyond the bare schema field.
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 via a browser-issued access token, either by using a pasted JWT for session-only login or with no args to receive a login link. It is specific about the action and resources involved, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect'.
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 concrete usage guidance: best practice is to add the token to the server config for a permanent connection, while pasting it into the tool gives a session-only login. It also explains when to call with no args (to get the link). It does not mention when to avoid this tool, but the guidance is clear for the primary use case.
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 tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, with toolkit_info being a superset. marketplace is a large multi-capability tool but clearly separate from the vehicle query tool.
Naming is inconsistent: English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long Portuguese snake_case name (detran_pi_veiculo_consultar) are all mixed, with no clear convention.
Although 7 tools is a reasonable count, the server's stated purpose is vehicle consultation, but only one tool serves that domain. The other six are generic platform management tools, making the set poorly scoped for its apparent intent.
For the named domain, the surface is severely incomplete—only a single query operation exists, with no supporting operations. The platform-related tools do not fill domain gaps, so the set lacks coherent coverage of any single purpose.