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 already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds details about persistence: config header yields permanent non-expiring connection, while pasted token is session-only. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the functional outcome of each method, without contradicting any hints.
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 functional but somewhat verbose, weaving purpose, recommendations, and usage into a single paragraph. It is front-loaded with the purpose but could be tightened; every sentence adds value, yet the structure is not crisp.
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 tool is simple (single optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers both invocation patterns (with/without token) and the persistence trade-offs. It does not explicitly mention success/failure responses, but for an auth tool a link generation and session establishment are sufficiently implied.
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 sole parameter 'token' is documented as an optional JWT that can be passed for session login, and its purpose is explained in the description ('call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes'). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by clarifying the parameter's meaning and optionality.
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 it is an authentication tool for logging in and obtaining/copying an access token. It specifies the action (log in, copy token) and distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' or 'report_bug' by focusing on credential handling.
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?
It explains two usage modes: permanent config-based header and session-based token paste, with explicit instructions for calling with or without the token parameter. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or references to alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.