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?
Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals that calling without arguments returns a login link, and providing a token enables a session-only login. It discloses the persistence difference between config-based and session-based approaches, covering behavioral nuances.
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 informative but somewhat long, mixing context and instructions. However, every sentence adds value, and it's well-organized (context, best practice, then two call patterns). It could be tightened but is not wordy.
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 lack of an output schema, the description explains what happens in each invocation (returns a link or accepts a token). It also covers setup guidance, making it complete for an agent to know when and how to call it.
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 zero schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the single `token` parameter: it's an optional JWT, and its presence switches between getting a link and authenticating. This adds meaning absent from the schema.
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: to authenticate IDE agents via a browser login and token retrieval. It distinguishes two distinct modes (permanent config vs session-only) and references the target context (Cursor, etc.), making it unmistakable what the tool does.
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?
Provides explicit usage scenarios: call with no args to generate a login link, or call with a token for session-based authentication. It also recommends the best practice (adding the token to server config for a permanent connection) and explains the two options clearly.
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 are distinct: domain-specific query vs. platform utilities. However, 'authenticate' and 'connect' overlap in managing connections, which could cause misselection. The remaining tools are clearly separate.
Names are inconsistent: most are camelCase (e.g., 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version') but the domain tool uses snake_case ('detran_pr_veiculo_consultar'). Mixed conventions and no unified verb-noun pattern.
Seven tools is within a reasonable count, but only one is domain-specific; the rest are generic MCP platform utilities. This feels like a bundle rather than a focused DETRAN server, making scope unclear.
The DETRAN domain is represented by a single consulting tool. No update, delete, or other lifecycle operations. While the service may be read-only, the lack of any additional domain actions leaves the surface thin.