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 useful behavior beyond the annotations: config header yields a permanent connection, while passing a token yields a session-only login, and no args returns a link. It does not fully spell out side effects or success/failure return values, but annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.
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 dense and front-loaded, with no fluff, but the long single sentence with parenthetical clauses and multiple alternatives could be structured into clearer separate instructions. Still, every part adds necessary information.
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 one-parameter auth tool with no output schema, it covers the no-arg return (the link), the token-paste path, and the persistent-config alternative. It doesn't state the response on a token success/failure, but the invocation guidance is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden for the optional `token` parameter. It explains that token is a JWT/access token pasted by the user and how to pass it, compensating well for the bare schema.
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 identifies the tool as MCP.AI authentication for IDE agents, with a concrete browser-login + access-token flow and two invocation paths (no args for a link, token for login). This specific verb+resource is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the unrelated calculo_* sibling tools.
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 differentiates the persistent config-header approach ('best... permanent, non-expiring') from the session-only paste/login path, and states exactly when to call with no args versus with { token }. This gives the agent clear selection criteria for both setup and invocation.
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 calculo_* tools are largely distinct by legal domain, but several share the same underlying correction/juros mechanics (e.g., calculo_atualizar, calculo_aluguel, calculo_pensao, calculo_trabalhista). Platform tools add further boundary confusion: marketplace includes report_bug, list_tools, and auth-related functionality that overlaps with the standalone report_bug, toolkit_info, and connect tools.
The 16 calculation tools follow a consistent calculo_<domain> pattern, which is good. However, the remaining tools mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), and verb_noun phrases (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), creating two distinct naming conventions within the same server.
At 22 tools, the set is on the heavy side of the borderline range. The domain calculators are individually justified, but adding six platform-level tools — including the very broad marketplace tool — makes the overall surface feel bloated for a server whose apparent purpose is judicial liquidation calculation.
The calculation tools cover a wide range of judicial liquidation scenarios: general debt updating, rent, alimony, labor, FGTS, bank contract revision, INSS restitution, RMC/RCC, criminal sentencing, prisoner progression, pension RMI, contribution time, and asset division. Minor gaps exist — such as a dedicated standalone honorários calculator or a more explicit precatório/RPV tool — but calculo_atualizar largely covers general monetary updating.