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 this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds context about the two authentication modes (session-only vs permanent) and warns that using a token is session-only. However, it doesn't describe side effects like replacing existing sessions or token validation behavior, so it adds some but not all behavioral details.
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 paragraph but well organized: it states purpose, then the 'Best' permanent method, then the 'Or' session method. It is concise enough, though it could benefit from formatting (e.g., bullet points) for clarity. It is not overly long and every sentence adds value.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers the two invocation modes and the token format. It doesn't explain the return value, but that's not critical for an authentication tool where the user provides the token. Given the low complexity, it is adequate.
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?
With schema coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining that the optional 'token' parameter is a JWT to be passed after user paste, and that omitting it returns a login link. It clearly clarifies the parameter's role and optionality beyond the raw schema definition.
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 an IDE agent to the MCP server. It specifies the exact process (log in, copy token, and either add to config or use this tool) and distinguishes it from a permanent config approach, making it distinct from siblings which are unrelated.
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?
It explains when to call with a token and when to call with no args, and contrasts with the permanent config method. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools, but it gives clear context for how to use the tool. The principal scenario is well covered.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect checks status, marketplace provides a meta-capability for finding/running other MCPs, pref_cpom_consultar is the specific data query, and report_bug/show_version/toolkit_info are standard administrative functions. No two tools overlap in scope.
The naming is mixed: verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), a noun (marketplace), and a prefixed compound (pref_cpom_consultar), plus noun phrases (toolkit_info, show_version). While each name is fairly clear, the pattern is inconsistent—no uniform verb_noun or noun convention across the set, and there's a mix of English and Portuguese.
7 tools is right within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool earns its place: the core domain operation (pref_cpom_consultar), a meta-tool for the platform (marketplace), and standard lifecycle/maintenance tools (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). It's neither sparse nor bloated.
For the CPOM domain, only one query operation is provided, but that may be all that's needed. The marketplace tool covers many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, list, etc.) within a single tool. Missing operations like a logout or explicit data export are minor and easily worked around. Overall, the surface covers its purpose well.