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 indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the two modes (permanent via config header, session-only via token) and explains that no args yields a login link. It also reveals the token is a JWT, going beyond the schema.
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 slightly verbose with a run-on second sentence, but it is front-loaded with the target audience and purpose. All sentences add value, though the structure could be tightened.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the authentication flow, permanent vs session modes, and how to obtain the token. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it doesn't detail post-auth behavior.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% yet the description fully explains the only parameter 'token': it is a JWT passed in the call for session login, and with no arguments the tool returns a link. This compensates completely for the lack of schema description.
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 authenticates IDE agents via browser login and provides an access token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication flow and token management, with specific verbs like 'log in' and 'copy the access token'.
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 usage guidance: recommend adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for session-only login. It also explains when to call with or without arguments, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
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.
Most tools have distinct names and purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace is a vast catch-all for many sub-operations. The mix of one domain-specific tool (ibama_regularidade_consultar) with six generic platform tools also makes the server's purpose confusing for an agent.
Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case in Portuguese (ibama_regularidade_consultar), compound nouns (toolkit_info), and one bare noun (marketplace). There is no predictable verb_noun pattern, and mixed languages further undermine consistency.
At 7 tools, the count is within the normal range, but the server's name suggests an IBAMA-focused purpose; only one tool actually belongs to that domain. The other six are general platform utilities, making the set feel misaligned with the server's identity, though not extreme.
The core domain function (ibama_regularidade_consultar) is covered as a single-point query, and the authentication/connection flow is supported by platform tools. However, there are no additional IBAMA-related operations (e.g., batch queries, status checks, or document verifications), so the domain surface is minimal. The platform side is broad but not deeply integrated with the domain.