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 include idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description explains the actual behavior: calling with no args returns a login link, calling with token authenticates. It also discloses that the token can be permanent if added to config, which is beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't explicitly state side effects like session creation or token validation errors, but the description is quite informative given the 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 appropriately concise, with clear front-loading of context (MCP.AI for IDE agents) and practical instructions. It uses a compact yet detailed format, covering both usage paths without unnecessary fluff. 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?
Even without an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: how to authenticate, both permanent and session methods, and optional parameter usage. It is complete for this tool's complexity, providing all necessary information for an agent to use it 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?
The schema has one parameter 'token' with no description coverage (0%). The description explains that the token is a JWT to be passed for session-only login, and that calling without args returns a link. This adds meaning to the parameter, but it doesn't specify format details or constraints beyond 'JWT'. Given the low schema coverage, the description compensates partially, but with only one param, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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: to authenticate an AI agent with MCP.AI by either obtaining a login link or accepting a pasted token. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on authentication for IDE agents, and provides specific usage scenarios (permanent config vs session-only).
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 when-to-use guidance: for IDE agents needing to log in, with two distinct workflows (adding token to config for permanent connection or pasting it for session-only). It also explains when to call with or without arguments, and mentions alternative of configuring the header directly, which helps agents decide.
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 purpose: authenticate handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace finds and runs other MCPs, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, toolkit_info reports toolkit state, and the domain tool consults fines. No two tools could be easily confused.
Tool names mix styles: verb-based names (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long descriptive domain name (pref_pa_belem_multas_consultar). No consistent verb_noun pattern or style coherence.
There are 7 tools, which is a reasonable count, but the vast majority are generic platform utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) unrelated to the server's apparent purpose of handling Belém traffic fines. Only one tool actually performs the domain function, making the set feel like a platform wrapper rather than a focused domain server.
The domain of traffic fines is severely under-covered: only a single consultation tool exists, with no create, update, or delete operations. The other tools address platform management but do not contribute to the stated purpose of the server, leaving the domain surface incomplete.