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 include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: token in config gives a permanent, non-expiring connection, while pasting token gives session-only. It does not fully disclose error handling or security warnings, but it goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage.
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 somewhat dense but every sentence carries relevant information. It front-loads the main purpose and then describes two usage modes. A more structured format could improve scannability, but current length is justified by the content.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers the login flow, both permanent and session-based, and the no-args case. It might lack mention of failure responses or post-login behavior, but it is sufficiently complete 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?
Schema has one optional string 'token' with zero description coverage. The description fully explains the parameter's meaning: the JWT pasted by the user for session login, and explains the no-args invocation for obtaining the link. This compensates completely for the lack of schema descriptions.
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: to authenticate with MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token handling. It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by specifying the authentication flow (access token, header config) and the two modes (permanent vs session-only).
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 guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header...' for permanent connections, 'Or paste it here for a session-only login' with specifics on token argument. Also clarifies the no-args case to get the link. No ambiguity about when to use which mode.
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, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, causing slight overlap. The domain-specific protestos_sp_consultar is unique and well-separated from the platform utilities.
Naming is inconsistent: one-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), an English verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), a noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese compound (protestos_sp_consultar). No unifying pattern is evident.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server name suggests a specialized domain while only one tool is domain-specific. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the composition feel unbalanced for the stated theme.
The domain tool provides the core query capability, and the marketplace tool enables discovery and invocation of additional MCPs, covering many potential gaps. However, the domain-specific surface itself is minimal with no supplementary operations like reporting or export.