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 that calling with no arguments returns a login link, while calling with a token performs session-only authentication. It also mentions the non-expiring header configuration, adding context beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). No contradiction with 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 two sentences and front-loads the key action (log in via browser, copy token). Some redundancy exists ('MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' could be removed), but overall it is compact and information-dense.
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 simple schema (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main usage scenarios: permanent config-based auth, session-only token auth, and retrieval of the login link. No major gaps.
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 only lists 'token' as an optional string with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT pasted by the user for session login, and that omitting it returns the login link. This is clear and actionable.
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: authenticate a user for MCP.AI by logging in via browser and obtaining a token. It specifies the context (IDE agents like Cursor) and the action, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool '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?
Provides clear usage guidance: recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or pasting the token for a session-only login. It explains the two invocation modes (with/without token), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling 'connect'.
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 distinct purposes: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace finds/runs MCPs, peti_trabalho_infantil_consultar queries PETI data, etc. However, connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, which could cause minor confusion.
Tool names mix styles: some are simple verbs (connect, authenticate), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a hyphenated branded name (peti_trabalho_infantil_consultar), and one is a pure noun (marketplace). The pattern is not uniform, though still readable.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable and within typical bounds. However, the server is branded as 'PETI (Trabalho Infantil)' yet only one tool directly relates to that domain, making the platform tools feel slightly excessive for the apparent purpose.
For the sole PETI-specific purpose, consulting a person's status by CPF/NIS is covered, but there are no additional operations like historical queries or batch checks. The platform management tools are comprehensive, but they are unrelated to the core domain, creating a sense of patchwork coverage.