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 behavioral context by distinguishing between permanent (header config) and session-only (token) logins, which is not in the annotations. However, it doesn't discuss potential side effects or error handling, but annotations already indicate non-destructive, non-read-only behavior.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and packs all necessary usage and parameter information without wasted words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential usage aspects: how to call, what to provide, and the two modes. It doesn't mention response format, but that is not critical for this tool.
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?
Despite zero schema coverage, the description fully explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT the user pastes, and clarifies that it's optional (calling with no args is allowed). It also explains the alternative of configuring the token in the server config, adding rich 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 the user by either providing a browser link or accepting a token. It explicitly names the resource (MCP.AI) and the verb (authenticate), and distinguishes from siblings by detailing the authentication flow.
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 explicitly explains when to call with no args (to get a link) versus with a token (session-only login), and recommends adding the token as a header for a permanent connection. It provides clear usage context for both scenarios.
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.
Tools like authenticate, connect, report_bug, and show_version have distinct purposes. However, the 'marketplace' tool is a monolithic mega-tool that bundles search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, cancel, and prompt-library operations, making it ambiguous which sub-action is intended. The domain-specific 'mpf_amazonia_protege_consultar' also sits awkwardly alongside generic platform tools.
Names are inconsistent: some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses long snake_case (mpf_amazonia_protege_consultar). There is no coherent naming convention across the set, mixing verb-first, noun-first, and domain-specific styles.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a platform utility server. The count is not excessive, but the 'marketplace' tool absorbs many responsibilities, which skews the effective scope. A few generic tools (report_bug, show_version) are expected in such a platform.
The server covers authentication, connectivity, marketplace operations (search, invoke, install), bug reporting, versioning, and toolkit status. However, the marketplace tool's monolithic design hides sub-operations, and the domain-specific query tool (mpf_amazonia_protege_consultar) suggests a data source but only exposes one operation. Missing explicit logout or disconnect operations.