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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it explains the token can be non-expiring if added to config, or session-only if pasted. It also clarifies the flow (browser login, copy token). This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention any side effects like creating a session or storing state.
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 a single paragraph but packs a lot of information. It's front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then explains usage. Slightly dense but efficient; no wasted words.
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 essential flow: how to authenticate, the two modes, and the parameter usage. It could mention what the response looks like (e.g., success message) but that's minor given no output schema.
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 one optional parameter 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the token parameter: it should be a JWT pasted by the user, and calling with no args returns the link. This adds meaning beyond 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 states the tool's purpose: to authenticate an IDE agent (like Cursor) with MCP.AI by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only authentication tool among many content-generation 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?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it explains two methods (permanent config-based token vs session-only token), when to call with no args to get the link, and when to call with the token. It also mentions the alternative of adding the token to the server config, which is a clear alternative path.
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 vast majority of tools have clear, distinct purposes with category prefixes (images, creations, audio, etc.) that aid selection. However, the inclusion of platform-level tools like 'marketplace', 'connect', and 'authenticate' introduces potential ambiguity, especially since 'marketplace' bundles many sub-actions into one tool, and 'connect' vs 'authenticate' both relate to session/auth status.
Most tools follow a consistent 'magnific_<category>_<action>' pattern (e.g., magnific_images_generate, magnific_audio_voices_list). However, several tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) omit the prefix entirely, breaking the otherwise predictable naming convention. This mixed pattern reduces overall consistency.
With 67 tools, the surface is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped set (typically 3-15). Even for a multi-domain media platform, this is overwhelming, risking agent confusion and performance issues. The calibration indicates anything above 50 is an extreme mismatch, which this clearly is.
The tool set covers a broad range of domains—images, video, audio, 3D, flows, spaces, stock, folders, and library assets—with operations covering create, read, list, search, and generation workflows. However, there are noticeable gaps such as no explicit deletion for individual creations (only folder deletion) and no direct update for certain resources, which slightly limits lifecycle completeness.