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?
No annotations beyond basic hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=true). The description explains the two modes: permanent vs session-only, and that it can be called with no args to get a link. It does not mention any side effects like opening browser, network calls, or that token is stored. IdempotentHint=true suggests repeated calls are fine, consistent with description. No contradiction, but lacks detail on what happens after login (e.g., validation).
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?
Description is one long sentence but packed with info. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and quickly explains usage options. Slightly dense but not overly long. No fluff.
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 complexity (auth flow, two modes, token handling), the description covers the main paths but lacks detail on error cases, what happens if token is invalid, or how the permanent config is set up. No output schema, so description carries more burden. It is functional but not exhaustive.
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?
Schema has 1 param 'token' with no description coverage (0%). The description mentions 'token' as a JWT for session login, providing some semantics, but it is brief and assumes understanding of JWT. It does not describe the format, length, or requiredness clearly. With low schema coverage, description compensates partially but not enough for a critical auth token.
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 states the tool authenticates the user via browser login and provides options for token handling. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing on authentication flow. However, the verb 'authenticate' is somewhat generic, but the resource (access token) and process (browser login) are specified.
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 use it: after user pastes token (session-only) or for permanent config. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use, but context is clear given siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' are alternatives. Could be improved by referencing alternative tools explicitly, but the description provides clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.