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 discloses the authentication workflow, including browser login, token capture, and two connection modes. It adds context beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) by explaining that it creates a session or permanent connection. No contradiction with 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 two sentences long and information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose and alternates between setup methods efficiently, but could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrasing like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.).'
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the authentication process, both usage modes, and token handling. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., a success message or link), but implies the output (the link for login when no token is provided), leaving minor ambiguity.
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 fully explains the 'token' parameter: it can be passed as a JWT for session login, or omitted to receive a link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify the exact format or validation rules.
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: authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents, with a specific verb (login) and resource (access token). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'easyjur_get_token' by detailing the browser login flow and token 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 provides explicit usage instructions with two scenarios: permanent config-based header vs. session-only token paste. It clearly states when to use each approach ('Best' vs. 'Or'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'easyjur_get_token' or when NOT to use this tool.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or sub-resource with clear CRUD actions. The easyjur_ tools are separated by entity (agenda, processo, pessoa, etc.) and by action (create, get, list), while sub-resource tools like easyjur_processo_partes or easyjur_agenda_comentarios have unambiguous scopes. Platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) serve disjoint meta-purposes, so no ambiguity.
Most easyjur_ tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_agenda, get_processo, list_despesas), but several break it with noun_subresource names (easyjur_agenda_comentarios, easyjur_processo_financeiros) and the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) use plain nouns without the prefix. This mixture of conventions makes the set less predictable.
47 tools is well above the threshold for a focused MCP server, even for a comprehensive legal management domain. The inclusion of platform meta-tools inflates the count, and many entities (agenda, processo) have multiple sub-resource readers. This volume risks overwhelming agents and slowing tool selection.
The tool surface provides create, get, and list for each entity, but there are no update or delete operations for any entity. Sub-resources (documentos, partes, mensagens, etc.) are read-only. The only workaround mentioned is creating agenda items to record movements, which is a workaround, not a real update. This is a significant gap that will cause dead ends for workflows requiring modification or removal.