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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the browser-based login flow and the distinction between permanent and session tokens. This adds context beyond the annotations' idempotent hint and non-destructive flag, though it doesn't detail side effects or failure modes.
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 but contains some redundancy and awkward phrasing ('MCP.AI for IDE agents'). The key information is present, but it could be structured more clearly.
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 simple auth tool, the description covers the essential usage scenarios and parameter behavior. It lacks explicit return value info but the absence of an output schema reduces the need.
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 single 'token' parameter is explained as a JWT for session-only login, and the no-args behavior is described. This compensates for the schema's lack of parameter 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 the tool's function: logging in via browser and obtaining an access token for authentication. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on the auth flow, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 paths: permanent config header vs. session-only token, and explains when to call with no args to get a link. However, it does not mention alternative tools for similar purposes.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate and connect are separate (login vs status), the mercado_* tools each target a specific asset class or function (crypto, currency, listing, macro, quote, ticker search), and platform tools like marketplace, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info are unambiguous. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
The naming is mixed: financial tools consistently use the 'mercado_' prefix, but platform tools use a variety of conventions—single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace), verb_noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), and nouns (toolkit_info). While readable, this inconsistency is noticeable and not as uniform as a strong verb_noun pattern.
At 12 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but roughly half of the tools are platform-management concerns (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) rather than financial data. This makes the set feel heavier and less focused than a pure market-data server, though it's not excessive.
The financial data tools cover a broad range: quotes, screening, crypto, exchange rates, macro indicators, and ticker discovery—sufficient for a Brazilian market data server. Some potential gaps like news or portfolio management are out of scope, and the platform tools add extra utility, leaving no critical missing operations for the core purpose.