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 mark idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: config header is permanent/non-expiring while pasted token is session-only, and no args returns a login link. No contradiction 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?
Two dense but well-organized sentences. The flow is logical: recommendation first, then session alternative, then invocation details. No redundant information.
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?
Covers the login link generation and both auth modes, but does not state the return value when a token is submitted or how errors are reported. Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap for an authentication 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 one optional token string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT for session-only login and that omitting it returns a link, giving the agent complete parameter understanding.
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 explains the authentication flow: browser login, copying an access token, and options for permanent vs session login. It is specific about the resource (access token) and distinguishes this tool's IDE-agent context from siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with '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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header' for permanent login, or 'paste it here' for session-only login, and 'no args to get the link'. It doesn't discuss when to use this tool over sibling tools, but offers clear invocation patterns.
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 clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/execution, domain lookup, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is minor overlap between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions clarify the different concerns.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), a contextual object-action (protestos_nacional_consultar), and verb-noun combinations (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are mixed without a unified convention.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server is dominated by platform meta-tools with only one domain-specific tool, making the tool count feel unbalanced for a server named 'Protestos Nacional'.
The single protestos consultation tool covers basic lookup needs, but the domain surface is very thin with no additional operations like history, export, or batch queries. The meta-tools provide broader platform capabilities but do not fill domain-specific gaps.