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 discloses behavioral aspects: it returns a link when called with no args, accepts a token for session login, and mentions config-based permanent connection. However, annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds practical context about the two modes (session vs permanent). It does not contradict annotations. Slightly less than 5 because it doesn't detail what happens after successful auth (e.g., validation, response).
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, dense paragraph. It is somewhat long but each sentence adds critical info about the two authentication methods. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then covers alternatives. Slightly verbose but not wasteful; could be split into bullet points for clarity, but it's acceptable.
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 (authentication flow with two modes) and that there is no output schema, the description covers the essentials: how to initiate, what to do with the token, and the permanent config option. It lacks details about potential error cases or what happens after successful token submission, but for a tool with a single optional parameter, it is fairly complete. Siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' are distinct, so no confusion.
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 coverage is 0% (no description in schema), but the description thoroughly explains the single parameter 'token': it is a JWT to paste for session-only login, and optional (call with no args to get the link). This fully compensates for the lack of schema description. Score 4 because it provides clear semantics beyond the schema's bare 'type: string'.
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: authentication for MCP.AI in IDE agents, providing a browser login link and accepting a token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing specifically on authentication flow.
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 guidance on when to use: for logging in via browser and copying the access token. It also gives alternatives: adding the token to config for permanent connection vs. pasting it here for session-only login. Clearly states when to call with or without args.
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 has a clear, distinct function, and the descriptions prevent overlap between them. However, the inclusion of six platform-level utilities alongside the single domain-specific tool (pref_mg_uberaba_cnd_consultar) creates a risk that an agent may select the wrong tool if it misinterprets the server's purpose.
Naming uses a mix of single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long descriptive snake_case tool (pref_mg_uberaba_cnd_consultar). While all are lowercase and snake_case for multi-word names, the pattern is not uniform in terms of verb/noun structure or granularity.
The server has 7 tools, but only one directly relates to its stated purpose (certidão negativa de débitos). The other six are generic MCP platform utilities (authentication, marketplace, bug reporting, etc.) that seem out of scope, making the set over-weighted with irrelevant tools for the intended domain.
For the domain of issuing negative debt certificates, only a single consult operation exists. There are no supporting tools for managing queries, historical lookups, or other lifecycle steps. The platform tools do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the surface minimal and potentially insufficient for real-world workflows.