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 annotations (readOnlyHint:false, idempotentHint:true, destructiveHint:false) are not contradicted. The description adds behavioral context about persistence (permanent vs session) and the no-args return of a link, which enriches the operational understanding beyond annotations.
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 efficiently structured, starting with the core flow and then presenting the two usage modes. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundant repetition.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary invocation details, including the persistent vs session distinction and the no-arg case. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 defines the single 'token' parameter by specifying it expects a JWT and is optional, and explains the behavior when omitted. This compensates entirely for the lack of schema detail.
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 performs user authentication for IDE agents via browser login and token exchange. It distinguishes the tool by explaining the two authentication modes (permanent config-based and session-only token). While it doesn't explicitly say 'authenticate', the flow is unambiguous.
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 usage instructions with two clear options: adding a config header for persistent access or pasting a token for session-only, plus the no-args case to get a login link. It doesn't mention alternatives among siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for agent invocation.
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: authentication, connection status, marketplace search/run, certificate consultation, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. However, `connect` and `toolkit_info` overlap in reporting connection status, and `authenticate`/`connect` are closely related. Still, the primary functions are mostly separable.
Naming conventions are mixed: single-word verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`, `marketplace`), verb_noun (`report_bug`, `show_version`), noun_underscore (`toolkit_info`), and a long prefixed snake_case name (`pref_mg_itauna_cnd_consultar`). No consistent pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a platform server, but the server is named after a single Brazilian municipal debt certificate service. Six of the seven tools are generic platform utilities with no direct relation to that stated purpose, making the set poorly scoped for its apparent domain.
For the declared purpose of consulting a negative debt certificate, only one tool actually performs that function. The remaining tools are platform management features that do not cover any additional aspects of the municipal services domain. The set feels like a generic platform shell mistakenly attached to a specific service name.