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?
Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context about the authentication flow: it generates a login link, allows token submission, and clarifies the difference between permanent and session-based authentication. This goes beyond the annotation hints.
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 longer than ideal but every sentence contributes useful information: target audience, login process, two authentication methods, and invocation syntax. It is structured as a clear step-by-step guidance, though a more concise format would improve scannability.
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 a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: why to use it, how to use it, what the token means, and the two login paths. No crucial information is missing for an agent to correctly invoke 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?
The schema has a single optional string property 'token' with no description. The description fully explains what token is ('<jwt>' pasted by user) and how it is used (session-only login), completely compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
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: authenticating IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself by describing the two authentication modes (permanent header config vs session token), which is specific and useful.
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 clear guidance on when to use the tool and how to invoke it, including the best practice of configuring a header for a permanent connection and the alternative of pasting a token for session-only login. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools, but the context (IDE agents) is well covered.
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 has a distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, Garantia Safra query, marketplace, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit info. Minor overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info, but they are still distinguishable.
Naming is inconsistent: most tools use English lowercase with underscores (authenticate, connect, report_bug), but one uses Portuguese (garantia_safra_consultar), and compound names vary (toolkit_info vs show_version). The mixed language and naming styles break any clear pattern.
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the server's purpose is muddled. Only one tool is domain-specific (Garantia Safra consultation), while the rest are generic platform utilities (marketplace, auth, reporting), making the count feel padded and unfocused.
For a server named Garantia Safra, only a single consult operation is provided, lacking any other domain-relevant actions. The remaining tools are about platform management rather than the domain, leaving obvious gaps if an agent expects to manage Garantia Safra data beyond a simple lookup.