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?
It discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: the distinction between permanent (config header) and session-only (token paste) modes, and that calling with no args returns a login link. It doesn't mention potential side effects or response format for token calls, but annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this is sufficient.
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, each adding value: it explains the login flow, recommends the config approach, and details the session alternative. It uses clear formatting with 'Best:' and 'Or' to structure options, and every sentence is necessary.
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 no output schema and a relatively simple auth flow, the description adequately covers the process: how to get the token, how to store it, and how to call the tool with or without a token. It doesn't describe the response for token calls, but this is a minor gap for an auth tool where the outcome is implicit.
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 zero parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter (a JWT to paste) and the special behavior of calling with no args. It specifies the token format and the context in which to provide it, which is essential for correct invocation.
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 MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It specifies the action (log in), the resource (access token), and the scope (IDE agents like Cursor), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on token-based auth.
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 provides explicit guidance on two usage modes: adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for session-only login. It also explains how to call with no args to get the link. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternative tools like 'connect', so it falls short of the 'explicit when-not' criterion.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but authenticate and connect both relate to authentication/connection status, which could confuse an agent. The single domain tool (mandados_prisao_consultar) is clearly distinct from the platform utilities.
Names are lowercase with underscores but mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), verb+noun compounds (report_bug, show_version), and nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). The Portuguese name mandados_prisao_consultar breaks the English pattern, resulting in an inconsistent though readable set.
With 7 tools, only one relates to the server's stated domain of arrest warrants; the other six are generic MCP platform utilities. This makes the count inappropriate as the platform tools dilute the server's focus and purpose.
The server offers only a single domain operation (mandados_prisao_consultar) and lacks any other warrant-related operations such as listing, detailed lookups, or historical searches. The platform tools are comprehensive for infrastructure but do not contribute to the domain, leaving the core purpose severely incomplete.