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 beyond annotations: it reveals that calling with no args returns a link, and that token submission enables session login, implying temporary state. It also notes that config-based auth is permanent and non-expiring. No contradiction with the annotations (idempotent, non-read-only).
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 about 70 words in three sentences, with each sentence conveying a distinct idea (purpose, permanent method, session method). It is efficient but slightly dense; every sentence earns its place without fluff.
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?
The description covers the main workflows (no args for link, token for session) but does not specify the exact return value when submitting a token (e.g., success message or error handling). Since there is no output schema, this gap leaves the agent without clear expectations for the token case.
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 a single `token` parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining it is a JWT for session login, and that omitting it (no args) yields a link. This resolves all ambiguity about the parameter.
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 IDE agents to the MCP server. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents) and the action (log in, obtain access token), and distinguishes between permanent config-based auth and session-based token submission. This differentiates it from sibling tools like `connect`.
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: it recommends adding the token to config for a permanent connection versus using the tool for a session-only login. It also explains the two invocation modes (no args for link, with token for session). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools, so a point is deducted.
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 distinctly separate role: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, legal process consultation, bug reporting, version display, and toolkit state. No two tools overlap in purpose.
Most tools use short English verb or noun phrases (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), but the core domain tool is a long Portuguese phrase (processos_judiciais_simplificada_consultar), breaking the pattern and mixing languages.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but six of them are generic platform utilities rather than specific to judicial processes. The server's stated purpose is only represented by a single domain tool, making the count feel slightly bloated with platform-related tools.
The domain tool provides the core consultation by CPF/CNPJ, which matches the 'simplified' intent. However, there are no additional judicial process operations (e.g., detailed process lookup, history, or documents), but the platform marketplace tool can extend capabilities.