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 explains that using the tool with a token results in a 'session-only login' implying side effects, but doesn't clarify what happens on the server (e.g., token storage, session expiration). It also doesn't describe the output when called with a token, only that without args you get the link.
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 moderately concise, conveying necessary details about two authentication methods and configuration. It's somewhat longer than needed but stays focused, though it could benefit from clearer segmentation.
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?
The tool lacks an output schema. While it explains the input scenarios, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., success message, token, or link). Error handling and edge cases are also unaddressed, reducing the overall context completeness.
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 only parameter 'token' is explained as a JWT that the user pastes. The description mentions two usage modes: with a token or with no arguments to get the link. This provides a good understanding of the parameter's role, even though the schema lacks a 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 that this tool is for MCP.AI authentication in IDE agents like Cursorais. It explains the login process and provides two distinct methods: permanent via header configuration and session-only via token argument.
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 gives explicit instructions: call with a token for session login, or with no args to receive a login link. It also recommends the best practice of adding a header to the server config for a permanent connection, which serves as usage guidance.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, DAP query, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit overview. Even the marketplace tool, while broad, is explicitly framed as the meta-catalog and runner, so there's no confusion with the other tools.
Tool names mix conventions: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a domain-specific compound (mda_sead_dap_consultar). There's no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern across the set, making it harder to predict naming for similar operations.
7 tools is a reasonable number for a platform management server managing authentication, marketplace access, and environment info. The marketplace tool is large but justified as the central catalog/enabler. The count is slightly on the high side for such a niche purpose, but it remains coherent.
The set covers the core platform operations: authentication, connection status, capability discovery/execution, bug reporting, and versioning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit credential management or billing history outside marketplace), but agents can accomplish main workflows without dead ends.