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 mark the tool as idempotent, non-read-only, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context: it returns a link when called with no args, accepts a JWT for session-only login, and notes that a config header provides a permanent connection. This clarifies the tool's behavior beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single run-on sentence that packs in product branding, instructions, and options. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but could be more streamlined. The two use cases (config vs. paste, token vs. no args) are muddled together, making it less scannable than ideal.
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 authentication helper, the description covers the primary flows: getting a link, using a token, and the recommended config approach. However, it does not mention response format, error handling, or what happens on failed authentication. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail on return values would improve completeness.
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?
Although the schema provides no description for the 'token' parameter, the prose description explains that it is a JWT pasted by the user and used for session-only login. This adds meaningful semantics that the schema lacks, effectively compensating 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 the tool's purpose: authenticate a user for MCP.AI in IDE agents by either returning a login link or accepting a pasted token. It uses specific verbs like 'log in' and 'paste' and identifies the resource (access token). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 'connect', the authentication flow is distinct and understandable.
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 explains when to call with a token versus no arguments and recommends a config-based approach for permanent access, giving some usage context. However, it does not contrast this tool with sibling tools or mention any exclusions, leaving the 'when to use this vs alternatives' implicit.
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 (auth, marketplace, version, etc.), but 'authenticate' and 'connect' overlap in the authentication/connection space, and the descriptions are verbose enough to clarify, yet some ambiguity remains.
Naming convention is inconsistent: generic lowercase names (authenticate, connect) mix with a long prefixed domain tool (pref_ba_salvador_cnd_consultar) and camelCase (toolkit_info), showing no clear pattern.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but most are platform-level utilities unrelated to the server's stated domain (CND consultation), making the set feel bloated with generic functions.
The domain coverage is severely lacking: only one tool (pref_ba_salvador_cnd_consultar) addresses the core purpose, with no supporting operations (e.g., list certificates, verify status, handle errors) to make it a complete service.