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 already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description doesn't contradict these. The description adds useful context (browser flow, token expiration semantics for session vs permanent). However, it does not clarify potential side effects like initiating a browser session or whether calling with token validates it immediately. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 relatively compact but packs a lot of information. It front-loads the most important instruction (browser login). However, it could be slightly more structured: the sentence about 'Best: add it to config' is somewhat tangential to the tool's direct use. Overall, it is concise without padding.
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 (multi-step authentication flow) and lack of output schema, the description covers the key steps and alternatives. It explains the two usage modes, but lacks details on error handling or what happens on invalid token. For a tool with no output schema, this is reasonably complete.
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 0% description coverage for the 'token' parameter, so the description must compensate. It mentions token is a JWT pasted by the user, and for session-only login. However, it does not specify the token format beyond `<jwt>` or any requirements (length, validity). The description covers the parameter's purpose but not its constraints or behavior when invalid.
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 identifies the tool as an authentication mechanism for MCP.AI, explaining the two login options (browser-based token generation and token paste). It distinguishes the use case (permanent config vs session-only) and is specific about the action.
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 instructions on when to use the tool: to obtain a login link or paste a token. It contrasts with permanent configuration via header, which is a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it versus other tools like connect or marketplace, but the context is implied from the authentication-specific purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.