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 reveals behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the two login modes (permanent via config header, session-only via token), and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not state error behaviors or side effects, but with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is clear.
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 somewhat long and rambling, but each sentence adds critical steps. The structure could be tighter, but it is not wasteful; it provides necessary context.
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 low complexity (1 optional param) and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: how to obtain a token, how to use it, and the difference between permanent and session-based login. It lacks explicit mention of return values or failure handling, but is otherwise complete.
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 only defines an optional 'token' string with no description. The description fully explains its purpose: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes' and 'with no args to get the link'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 this is for authentication/logging in to MCP.AI for IDE agents, with explicit steps ('log in in the browser, copy the access token'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the login flow, though it does not explicitly contrast with 'connect'.
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 concrete usage scenarios: 'Best: add it to this server's config...' for permanent login, or 'paste it here for a session-only login'. It also explains when to pass a token versus call with no args. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but gives clear when-to-use guidance.
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 only domain-specific tool, ibama_autuacoes_consultar, is clearly distinct, but the platform utilities overlap (e.g., connect and toolkit_info both report connection state) and marketplace introduces a meta-layer that confuses the set's purpose. The descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could easily misselect among the generic tools.
Names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (ibama_autuacoes_consultar). All use lowercase underscores, but the lack of a consistent pattern and mixed languages make it unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but six are generic platform utilities that don't belong in a server named for IBAMA autuações, making the count feel inflated for the stated domain. The single domain tool is appropriate, yet the presence of marketplace and account tools dilutes the set's focus.
For a public-data query MCP, the single consultar tool covers the essential operation, but there are no complementary features like history, batch lookup, or export. The marketplace tool can fill some gaps by invoking other MCPs, but that's not part of this server's native domain surface.