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?
Discloses that calling with no args returns a link, and with token sets session state. Aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds detail beyond them.
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?
Two sentences pack all essential info without verbosity. Front-loaded with purpose and method.
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?
Fully covers tool behavior for a single-parameter authentication tool, including usage scenarios and parameter meaning, despite lack of output schema.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, description fully compensates: explains token parameter as JWT from browser, its optionality, and behavior when omitted.
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?
Description clearly states authentication purpose with specific actions: login, copy token, provide token or get link. Distinguishes from sibling tools which are unrelated (connect, marketplace, etc.).
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?
Provides clear context for two usage methods (permanent via config vs session via token) and tells user when to call with token vs no args. Lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives but sufficient 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.
Tools like 'marketplace' and 'toolkit_info' have overlapping functionality regarding installed MCPs and tool listing, potentially confusing an agent. Similarly, 'authenticate' and 'connect' both handle authentication aspects. However, the notafiscal tools are clearly distinct by operation.
The tools mostly follow a snake_case convention, and the notafiscal tools share a consistent prefix ('notafiscal_'). Minor deviations exist (e.g., 'notafiscal_empresas' uses a noun instead of a verb), but overall the pattern is predictable.
With 12 tools covering both a generic MCP marketplace and a specific invoice service, the count is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
The notafiscal tools cover the main CRUD lifecycle (emit, consult, list, cancel, download) and the marketplace tools cover discovery, installation, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update an invoice or manage user accounts), but the core workflows are supported.