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 context beyond the annotations by explaining the browser-based login flow, the two connection modes (permanent vs. session-only), and the token-handling behavior. It does not contradict the idempotentHint, as repeated calls with the same token are harmless. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior or response format, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 sized but every sentence contributes necessary information. It front-loads the purpose and uses a clear 'Best... Or...' structure. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and not verbose.
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 description covers the essential aspects: purpose, two authentication methods, and exact call patterns. There is no output schema, and the return value (e.g., a link or success message) is not specified, but for an authentication tool, this is acceptable and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 input schema has one 'token' property with no description (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates: it explains when to provide a token ('paste it here') and when to omit it ('no args to get the link'), and specifies the expected format ('{ token: "<jwt>" }'). This adds complete meaning beyond the 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 is for authentication: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token.' It distinguishes between permanent (config header) and session-only (token) login, and the verb 'authenticate' is specific to the resource. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.
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?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header... for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login.' It also explains the exact call patterns for token vs. no-args, leaving no ambiguity about when to use each method.
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.
The tools serve mostly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace browsing, the domain-specific query, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is slight overlap between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' in connection status reporting, but the descriptions clarify their distinct focuses.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are verb-noun ('report_bug', 'show_version'), one is a single verb ('connect'), one is a noun ('marketplace'), one is a long Portuguese phrase ('mte_infracoes_consultar'), and one mixes noun+noun ('toolkit_info'). This heterogeneous naming makes the set feel uncoordinated.
Seven tools is within a typical range, but only one tool actually addresses the server's stated purpose of labor infractions. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the server feel overstuffed with unrelated functionality for a specialist domain.
For a server dedicated to 'Infrações Trabalhistas', the only domain tool is a single query by CPF/CNPJ. There are no additional operations like listing infraction details, appeals, or supporting different query types. The surface is minimal and likely insufficient for broader use cases.