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 (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) are complemented by description details: the tool can return a link (no args) or accept a JWT token for session authentication, and the token can be stored permanently in config. This goes beyond annotation-only information without contradicting it.
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 concise and information-dense, using two sentences to cover purpose, best practice, and invocation patterns. Every clause serves a purpose, and the structure (context → recommended method → alternative) is clear.
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 simple auth tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the core flows (config-based permanent login, session-only with token, link retrieval). It doesn't detail response formats or error cases, but these are not critical for correct invocation.
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 only one undocumented token parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the token as a JWT, how to pass it, and the no-args alternative. This provides enough meaning for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 ('log in') and resource (the MCP server). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing exclusively on the auth flow, including browser login and token exchange.
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 context: when to use (for IDE agents), the best practice (add token to config as header), and the session-only alternative (pass token or no args to get link). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
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 clearly distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect checks connection status, ibama_embargos_consultar is the only domain operation, and the rest are platform utilities. No two tools overlap in function.
Naming styles are mixed: single verbs (authenticate, connect), a Portuguese snake_case domain tool (ibama_embargos_consultar), and English verb_noun combinations (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). This inconsistency makes the set feel disjointed.
The count of 7 is within a reasonable range, but the server named 'IBAMA Embargos' carries only one domain tool while the other six are generic platform utilities. This composition dilutes the server's focus and makes the count feel disproportionate to its stated purpose.
The domain surface is severely limited: only a single consult operation for embargo certificates. There are no other domain-relevant actions, and the platform tools are unrelated to the core domain, leaving obvious gaps for any workflow beyond a simple query.