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?
Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about persistent vs. session-only login and explains the no-args behavior of returning a link. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by actionable setup instructions. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes useful guidance, with no filler or redundancy.
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 one-optional-parameter auth tool with no output schema, this description covers the essential flow: browser login, token copying, permanent vs. session-only options, and the two invocation patterns. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most contexts.
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 a token string with no description and 0% coverage. The description compensates by explaining that token is a JWT pasted by the user, and that omitting it triggers a browser login link flow. This adds practical meaning beyond the raw 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's purpose: authenticating IDE agents by logging in via browser and providing an access token. It gives explicit actions ('log in', 'copy the access token') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect or marketplace by focusing on token-based authentication.
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 usage context: permanent configuration via Authorization header vs. session-only login by passing a token or calling with no args to get the link. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the scenarios are well-defined for this auth flow.
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 are mostly distinct, but 'authenticate' and 'connect' overlap in purpose (both dealing with auth/connection). The rest are clearly separated by function.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace) mixed with underscore-separated compound names (pref_ba_camacari_cnd_consultar, toolkit_info). No clear pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a utility server that includes meta tools and one domain-specific query. Not excessive or minimal.
The server focuses on a single municipal certificate query, but lacks additional domain operations (e.g., listing certificates or status checks). The utility tools are general but not domain-specific, so coverage feels thin for the stated purpose.