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?
Adds context beyond annotations by explaining browser login requirement and persistence differences (permanent vs session-only). However, it does not describe the return value or error behavior, which is a gap given no output schema.
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?
Three sentences deliver purpose, configuration, and usage in a compact form. Slightly dense but each sentence adds value; could be better structured with bullet points, yet it's not overly verbose.
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 no output schema and a simple tool, the description covers the main scenarios: link generation, session login, and permanent configuration. It lacks explicit mention of return values or edge cases, but is reasonably complete for a straightforward auth tool.
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 an optional token string with no description; the description explains that token is a JWT for session auth and that omitting it returns a login link. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 is for authentication to MCP.AI, with instructions for browser login and token handling. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on login/token configuration, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the 'connect' sibling.
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 usage paths: permanent configuration via header, session-only via token parameter, and link generation via no args. It also recommends the best option (permanent config) and explains the alternative, giving clear when-to-use guidance.
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 serve distinct platform functions; connect and toolkit_info overlap somewhat on connection status but are clearly separated by focus (URLs/auth vs installed MCPs/accounts). The single domain tool stands apart naturally, leaving little ambiguity.
Names mix verb-based (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info) and a Portuguese domain-specific name (prf_infracoes_consultar), showing no consistent pattern beyond lowercase underscores.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic platform utilities while only one addresses the stated PRF domain, making the set feel bloated and off-topic for a server named 'Infrações da PRF'.
The domain surface is minimal—only a single consultation tool for traffic fines with no additional operations like export, reporting, or support for different query types. The generic platform tools do not contribute to domain coverage.