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 adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the difference between permanent (config header) and session-only (token paste) authentication, and the non-expiring nature of the config approach. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this extra context is valuable.
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 three sentences long and generally front-loaded with the tool's context. Each sentence covers a distinct aspect (overview, best practice, alternative). While a bit verbose, every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: how to initiate login, the two methods, and the parameter behavior. It does not describe the exact response shape, but that is not critical for this authentication tool.
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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so by stating 'call with { token: "<jwt>" }' and 'or with no args to get the link', clarifying that the token is optional and what it represents. This compensates well for the schema's lack of 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's purpose: it facilitates authentication by providing a browser login link and accepting an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings through specific references to MCP.AI for IDE agents and the two usage modes (permanent config vs session-only).
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?
Explicit guidance is given on when to use the tool: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header...' and 'Or paste it here for a session-only login'. It also explains when to call with no args to get the link, making the usage context clear.
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 INPI-specific tools are clearly distinct: busca searches by term, processo gets full details, processo_resumido gets a summary, titular finds by holder, and patentes finds patents. The generic tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are also distinct from each other, though the mix of domain and platform tools creates some initial ambiguity about which to use for a given task.
INPI tools follow a consistent prefix pattern (inpi_marcas_*, inpi_patentes), but the generic tools use simple action_noun names without the prefix (authenticate, connect, marketplace). This mixed convention is readable but not fully consistent across the set.
With 11 tools, the count is within a typical range, but the scope is split between 5 INPI domain tools and 6 platform/utility tools that seem unrelated to the server's stated purpose. This dilutes the focus and makes the set feel over-inclusive for a dedicated INPI server.
The INPI tools cover trademark search, process details (full and summary), trademarks by holder, and patents by holder, but lack a patent search by term or other advanced INPI queries. The generic tools add no domain coverage, leaving notable gaps for a comprehensive IP tool suite.