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 discloses the key behavior: calling with no args returns a login link, and passing a token enables authentication. It mentions the permanent vs. session-based nature, but does not explicitly state what happens to existing tokens or any side effects. Since annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, the description adds some but not exhaustive transparency.
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 somewhat verbose and rambling, with a long second sentence that combines instructions and rationale. It could be more concise and better structured (e.g., bullet points for the two methods). However, it is not excessively long and contains no redundant fluff.
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 the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use it in two scenarios, and the parameter semantics. It does not mention error handling or return values, but these are not specified in the schema, so the description is adequate for the context.
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 provides no description for the 'token' parameter, but the tool description explains its meaning: it expects a JWT from the user, used for session-only login. It also clarifies that the parameter is optional (no args yields a link). This adds meaning to the parameter beyond the raw 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 IDE agents like Cursor via MCP.AI. It specifies the action (log in, copy token) and the resource (MCP.AI), distinguishing it from siblings that handle other tasks like connecting or reporting bugs.
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 usage instructions: either add the token to the server config for permanent access or pass the token in the call for a session-only login. It also explains how to obtain the token (with no args) and when to use each method, giving clear when-to-use 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 has a distinct, clear purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace search, specific certificate query, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. No overlaps or ambiguity.
Names are inconsistent: mix of single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), Portuguese compound (mpt_df_cnf_consultar), and underscore-separated phrases (report_bug, show_version). No uniform pattern.
7 tools is within the typical range. While several are generic platform utilities, they are all relevant to the server's integration and the single domain-specific tool is justified.
The server provides the core certificate query (mpt_df_cnf_consultar) along with necessary authentication and status tools. No obvious missing operations for its stated purpose, though it is read-only and limited.