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 key behaviors: calling with no args returns a link, calling with token validates a session, and the distinction between permanent and session-only. It goes beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true) by explaining the two-flow nature and the external browser step. No contradictions with 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 a single paragraph but packed with necessary instructions. It front-loads the purpose, then structures the two usage methods with 'Best:' and 'Or'. Every sentence earns its place, though slightly long, it remains clear and well-organized.
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 lack of output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential flow: browser login, token retrieval, two usage modes, and how the agent should call the tool. It omits error handling or invalid-token scenarios, but for an authentication tool it is adequately 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 one undocumented token parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that token is the JWT pasted by the user, and how omitting it triggers the link-returning behavior. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema.
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: authenticating to the MCP server via browser login and token. It uses specific verbs ('log in', 'copy', 'call') and explains the resource (the server's authentication). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only auth-related tool among the listed siblings.
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 usage modes: permanent via config header or session-only via token parameter. It explains when to call with no args (to get the link) and when to call with token (after user pastes). While it doesn't name alternative tools, it gives clear context for the agent to decide when to use this tool.
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 have distinct purposes (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), but 'marketplace' is a catch-all with many sub-actions and overlaps with 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' in terms of status/installed state. The legal consultation tool is unique, but the platform tools create some boundary confusion.
Naming mixes English and Portuguese, single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version, processos_judiciais_completa_consultar with the verb at the end). There is no consistent convention.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named 'Processos Judiciais' while most tools are generic platform management tools, making the scope feel mismatched. The count itself is not excessive, but the tool-to-purpose relationship is weak.
For a legal process domain, only one tool directly addresses the purpose; there are no other legal-specific operations beyond the single consultation. The remaining tools are unrelated to legal processes, so the completeness of the stated domain is severely lacking. If considered as a platform server, coverage is broader but still ad-hoc.