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?
Description discloses behavior beyond annotations: explains the two modes (no args returns a link, with token performs session login), the benefit of config header (permanent/no expiry), and the session-only nature of pasting. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).
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 moderately sized but well-structured, with clear instructions and a logical flow (login, copy token, best practice, alternative). It front-loads the purpose and uses semicolons and examples effectively. Slightly verbose but all sentences add 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 complexity of an authentication tool, it covers the essential flow: how to initiate, how to pass token, and the difference between permanent and session-based auth. It does not explicitly state return values, but the 'get the link' phrase implies the output for the no-arg case. Adequate for the tool's purpose.
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 only parameter 'token' is explained in detail: it is a JWT to be used for session-only login, and it is optional (no args retrieves a link). This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema, which has no description.
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?
Description clearly states it authenticates the IDE agent, with explicit verb 'log in' and specific methods (browser login, token paste). Distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on authentication flow and token handling.
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 instructions on when to use each mode: best to add token to config for permanent connection, or paste token for session-only, with details on how to call (with or without args). Clearly explains alternatives and prerequisites.
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.