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 implies side effects (e.g., permanent config changes) and mentions token handling, but does not clearly state whether the tool modifies state or just returns a link. Annotations indicate non-read-only, but behavior is not fully disclosed.
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 run-on with mixed instructions and alternatives, making it difficult to parse. It lacks clear structure and could be more concise and organized.
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?
It explains usage and parameter behavior, but does not describe the return value or error scenarios. The description is adequate for a simple authentication tool but leaves some 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?
Even though the schema has no description, the tool description explains the token parameter as a JWT and clarifies it is optional (no args returns a link). This adds meaningful context beyond the 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 indicates the tool is for authentication, but the phrasing is convoluted, mixing instructions and alternatives. It distinguishes from siblings by its focus on login/token.
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 explicit usage options (pass a token or call with no args to get a link), and explains permanent vs. session-only authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other 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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection, which could cause slight confusion. The rest are clearly differentiated.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), a long descriptive name (pref_ba_salvador_nada_consta_consultar), and compound verbs/nouns (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) break any clear pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a platform server that covers authentication, marketplace search, feedback, and info. Not too few or too many.
The set covers core actions but lacks explicit install/uninstall or management operations for MCPs, relying on marketplace to implicitly handle them. This leaves a notable gap for a full lifecycle.