EasyJur

easyjur_get_token

Read-onlyIdempotent

Consulta um token de API por ID.

Bulk support: accepts token_ids for batched execution.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token_id": "<token_id>"
    },
    "name": "easyjur_get_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`token_id`	Yes
`token_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds useful bulk execution context but does not explain response shape, authentication needs, or error behavior. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence and one short bulk-support note. Every phrase adds information without unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a simple read-by-ID operation and the annotations cover the safety profile, but no output schema exists and the return value is not explicitly described. The mysterious query parameter and the exact bulk execution contract are also left unexplained, so completeness is limited.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It only restates token_id and token_ids in broad terms and completely ignores the query object parameter. It also leaves the interplay between required token_id and optional token_ids unclear, so parameter meaning remains under-explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's verb and resource: "Consulta um token de API por ID." This differentiates it from sibling tools like easyjur_list_tokens by specifying retrieval by a token ID, and also mentions bulk support via token_ids.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a specific token is needed and supports bulk token_ids, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as easyjur_list_tokens. No exclusions or contrast with sibling tools are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All EasyJur tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.