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?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that the token is non-expiring if added to config, versus session-only when pasted. It mentions the browser login flow and the need for the user to paste the token. While annotations are present (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint), the description provides valuable detail about how the token is used and the permanence of the setup.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a structured flow: browser login, copy token, then two alternatives (config or session). Every sentence contributes to explaining the authentication process, and it avoids 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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It explains the authentication flow for both permanent and session-based usage. However, it could have briefly mentioned what response or outcome the agent can expect (e.g., confirmation of auth), but given the low complexity, the description covers the essential context.
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 input schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains the semantics of the token parameter: it is a JWT that can be passed after the user pastes it, or omitted to get the login link. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but since there is only one optional parameter, the description's explanation is adequate though not extensive.
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 an IDE agent (like Cursor) by logging in via browser, obtaining an access token, and either configuring it permanently or using it for a session-only login. It specifically identifies the action (authenticate) and the resource (MCP.AI server), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' or 'toolkit_info'.
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 when-to-use guidance: it explains two usage scenarios: (1) adding a permanent header to the server config, and (2) passing a token for a session-only login, including the option to call with no args to get the login link. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on authentication context, and it gives clear alternatives (permanent vs. session-based).
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 DETRAN PR specific tool is clearly distinct, but several platform-level tools (marketplace, toolkit_info, connect) overlap in describing installed vs. available MCPs and connection status, which could cause confusion about which to use for checking capability and connectivity.
Tool names mix conventions: 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version', 'toolkit_info' are generic and use various styles (snake_case, camelCase with underscores, plain words), while 'detran_pr_veiculo_completa_consultar' is domain-specific. No consistent verb_noun pattern.
7 tools is a moderate count, but they serve two different purposes: a single domain-specific data query tool and a generic platform administration toolkit. The count is neither too thin nor heavy, but the mix makes it feel somewhat imbalanced.
The domain-specific surface is severely incomplete: only a single consultation tool for vehicle data, with no related operations (e.g., history, multiple query types, or batch). The platform tools are generic and not tailored to the DETRAN domain, so agents have limited capabilities for actual vehicle information workflows.