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 and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: browser login, token handling, and returning a link with no args. It does not cover error handling, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.
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?
Three sentences, each conveying necessary information about setup and usage. There is some redundancy between the 'best' and 'or' alternatives, and phrasing like 'log in in the browser' is awkward, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.
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 single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers usage scenarios and expected behavior (link). It doesn't specify return values for token-based login, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.
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 description explains the optional token parameter: passing a JWT for session-only login, and no args returns a link. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage by giving clear meaning to the parameter.
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 with MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by describing the specific auth flow, though the verb 'authenticate' is embedded in the name.
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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: permanent connection via config header vs session-only via token parameter, and explains no-args behavior. It doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools as alternatives, but the context is 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, Interpol data lookup, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit state. There is no meaningful overlap that would confuse an agent.
Tool naming is inconsistent: some are single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace), some are snake_case verb_noun compounds (report_bug, show_version), and one is a non-English prefixed verb (interpol_consultar). This mixed style makes the naming pattern unpredictable.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the set is split between Interpol-specific functionality and generic MCP platform management, making the server's scope feel somewhat unfocused. Still, the count itself is not excessive.
The platform management side is fairly covered (auth, connection, toolkit info, marketplace, bug reporting), but the Interpol-specific side consists of only one tool, leaving no options for broader Interpol data queries or follow-up operations. This makes the server feel incomplete relative to its name.