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?
Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true), the description discloses permanent vs session-only behavior, what calling with no args does, and how the token is used. It adds context about the two login methods, though it doesn't mention failure modes or token validation.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose. It contains some run-on phrasing but every sentence adds meaningful information. It is concise enough for its content.
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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the main use cases and login modes. It doesn't describe the return value, but no output schema exists and the steps are clear. It is complete for an authentication tool with one optional parameter.
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 defines 'token' as a string with no description. The description fully explains that the token is a JWT to paste for session-only login, and clarifies that omitting it returns the login link. This compensates completely for the 0% schema coverage.
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 this is for authentication ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') and gives specific usage modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on IDE agent login flow, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 instructions: best practice (config header for permanent connection), session-only paste, or no-args to get link. It explains when to use each approach, but does not explicitly contrast with 'connect' or other sibling tools.
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 clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace, debtor lookup, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is no overlap between these operations, so an agent can easily select the right tool for the task.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools are single verbs (authenticate, connect), others are verb-noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), and the domain tool is in Portuguese (pgfn_devedores_consultar). This inconsistent style and language mixing make the tool names less predictable.
The count of 7 tools is within a normal range, but the composition is unbalanced: only one tool (pgfn_devedores_consultar) relates to the server's stated domain (PGFN debtors), while the other six are generic platform utilities. This dilutes the focus and makes the tool set feel scoped more to the platform than to its declared purpose.
The sole domain tool covers a simple debtor lookup (CPF/CNPJ verification), which is a complete operation for that specific query. However, there is no additional functionality such as detailed debtor information, history, or batch queries, and the numerous platform tools do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the surface thin for a dedicated debtors service.