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 fully discloses behavior: it can either return a login link or accept a token to establish a session, and clarifies the difference between permanent (config) and session-only (pasted) setups. Annotations (idempotentHint true) align with this behavior, with no contradictions.
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 but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core action and then explains the two methods clearly. Minor redundancy but acceptable.
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 simple schema with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: how to authenticate (two methods), the meaning of the token parameter, and the behavior of calling with no args. It is complete for an AI agent to decide and invoke correctly.
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 a single 'token' parameter with no description, but the tool description explains its purpose (a JWT to paste for session login) and that it can be omitted to get a link. This fully compensates 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 this tool authenticates by either providing a browser login link (no args) or accepting a pasted JWT token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all note-related) by focusing on authentication and configuration.
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 explicitly explains when to use each mode: adding token to config for permanent access, or pasting token for session-only, or no args to get the link. This provides clear context for selecting the tool over alternatives like 'connect'.
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 keep_* tools are clearly distinct with verb_noun patterns, and the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) serve separate functions. No two tools appear to do the same thing, though the mix of Keep and platform tools could cause an agent to briefly confuse context.
The keep_* tools follow a consistent keep_verb_noun pattern, but the platform tools use simple unrelated names (authenticate, connect, marketplace) without the prefix, breaking consistency across the set.
At 30 tools, the server exceeds the recommended range. While the Keep operations are comprehensive, the inclusion of 6 platform management tools inflates the count and makes the surface heavier than necessary for a Keep-focused server.
The Keep tools cover full lifecycle: create/read/update/delete for notes, list items, labels, and collaborators, plus archive/trash/pin and media retrieval. The platform tools add connection and marketplace capabilities. Minor gaps like bulk operations on notes are partially addressed with bulk support fields.