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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds behavioral context: it explains that calling with no args returns a link, and that pasting a token provides session-only login. It also mentions the permanent config option. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail side effects like token validation or error handling.
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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the purpose. It packs a lot of information efficiently: the target audience, the login method, the two usage modes, and the config alternative. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly clearer with bullet points, but it's acceptable.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main use cases and the alternative permanent setup. It doesn't explain what happens after authentication (e.g., how the token is used), but that's beyond the tool's scope. The sibling tools like 'connect' might be related, but the description doesn't need to address them.
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 has one optional parameter 'token' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains the token parameter's purpose: it should be a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't specify the token format beyond 'jwt' or any constraints. Since there's only one parameter and it's optional, the description compensates reasonably.
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: to authenticate an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes between two usage modes (permanent config-based and session-only). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', though the context suggests it's the authentication entry point.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after the user pastes a token, or with no args to get a login link. It also explains the alternative of adding the token to the server's config for a permanent connection, which is a clear usage guideline. It doesn't mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.
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.
Several tools overlap in the authentication/connection space (authenticate, connect, toolkit_info), and the massive marketplace tool dwarfs the single domain-specific tool. An agent may struggle to choose the right tool for routine setup vs. actual certificate consultation.
Tool names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), a Portuguese descriptive phrase (pref_ba_ilheus_cnd_consultar), and compound verbs (report_bug, show_version). No consistent verb_noun pattern is followed.
Seven tools is numerically reasonable, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated purpose. The actual domain-specific functionality is reduced to a single tool, making the set feel bloated and misaligned.
The domain of issuing a negative certificate is served by one core consultation tool, but no additional domain operations (e.g., certificate history, validation, cancellation) exist. The platform tools add unrelated breadth rather than filling domain-specific gaps.