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 about permanent vs session-only login and the behavior of calling with or without a token, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the idempotentHint and provides useful behavioral details.
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 three sentences and covers all necessary information, though it is slightly verbose and mixes config advice with API usage. It is still concise enough and front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 optional-parameter tool, the description covers the main call patterns and provides sufficient context. It does not describe output or error cases, but given the low complexity and lack of output schema, it is adequately complete.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the token parameter as a JWT and when to include it. It clearly states that calling with no args is valid, making the optional nature of the parameter explicit.
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 that the tool authenticates to MCP.AI for IDE agents and explains the login and token retrieval process. It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'connect'.
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 clear instructions for both permanent (config header) and session-only (token argument) authentication, and explains calling with no arguments to get a link. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the 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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (marketplace, obito_consultar, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). The only ambiguity is between authenticate and connect, both of which deal with authentication and connection status, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one.
Naming styles are inconsistent: some tools use single verbs (authenticate, connect), some use snake_case verb_noun (obito_consultar, report_bug), and others use noun forms (marketplace, toolkit_info) or mixed (show_version). There is also a mix of English and Portuguese, further reducing predictability.
7 tools is a reasonable count, falling within the typical 3-15 range. The count is appropriate, though the server mixes a single domain-specific tool with several platform-level utilities, which makes the scope slightly uneven but not excessive.
The server is named 'Óbito' and the core purpose appears to be death-status consultation via obito_consultar, but the tool surface includes only that one domain operation. There are no supporting tools like query history, batch lookup, or results reporting, so the domain coverage is notably shallow. The platform tools are broad, but they don't compensate for the limited domain-specific functionality.