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?
Reveals that the tool initiates a browser login, returns a link when called without args, and accepts a JWT token for authentication. It adds context beyond annotations (which indicate mutation and idempotency) by explaining the two workflows, though it doesn't mention token expiration or validation side effects.
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?
Two compact sentences cover purpose, usage modes, and parameter semantics. No fluff; every clause contributes actionable information. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 simple tool (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: how to authenticate permanently or temporarily, what input is expected, and the no-args behavior. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste, and that calling without args returns the login link. It provides functional meaning but not full detail on token format or constraints, hence not a 5.
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 explicitly states the resource (MCP.AI) and the action (authenticate/login) with clear outcomes: obtaining a link or submitting a token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by focusing solely on authentication for IDE agents.
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?
Describes when to use each method: adding token to config for permanent, non-expiring connection vs pasting for session-only. It also clarifies that calling with no args yields the login link, providing explicit usage contexts and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.