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 already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds important behavioral context by explaining the login flow, that no args returns a link, and how tokens are used for session login, without contradicting the annotations.
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 bit longer but every sentence adds necessary information about the two authentication modes and the permanent config. It is well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and then explaining options.
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 tool with no output schema and minimal parameter schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: how to log in, how to use the token, and the difference between permanent and session auth. It could mention response details or error cases, but it is sufficiently complete for invocation.
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 'token' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that token is a JWT for session login, and that omitting it triggers a link response. This makes the parameter's meaning and usage crystal clear.
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 with MCP.AI by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes between permanent config as a header and session-only token input, making the tool's function unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to call with no args (to get a link) versus with a token (session login), and describes the recommended permanent setup via config. It does not compare against sibling tools like 'connect', but the usage context is clear.
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 are generally distinct, with the domain-specific consult tool clearly separated from platform utilities. However, 'marketplace' is a broad catch-all that overlaps with 'toolkit_info' for listing/installing capabilities, creating potential confusion.
Naming is inconsistent: verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), compound names with underscores (mpf_processos_consultar, toolkit_info). No consistent verb-noun or noun-verb pattern, mixing English and Portuguese.
With 7 tools, the count is moderate, but only one tool serves the stated domain (MPF Processos). The other six are generic platform management tools that belong to a separate server, making the set feel bloated and misaligned with its name.
The core consultation tool covers the primary need but offers no additional process-related operations (e.g., listing, detailing, or updating). The platform tools do not contribute to domain completeness, leaving the surface minimal but functional.