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 indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, but the description adds important behavioral context: permanent vs. session-only authentication, and that the token does not expire when added to config. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 sentence with multiple clauses, but it is well-structured with clear separators (') and enumerations. Every part contributes to explaining the tool's behavior. Though a bit lengthy, it is efficient and front-loaded with the purpose.
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?
With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary details: how to obtain the token, the two authentication modes, and the effect of calling with or without arguments. Complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.
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 only defines an optional 'token' property with no description. The description clearly explains that providing a token performs session login, while omitting it returns a link. This adds essential meaning that the schema lacks, compensating 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's purpose: authenticate to MCP.AI for IDE agents. It specifies the mechanism (browser login, token retrieval) and distinguishes two use cases (permanent config header vs. session token). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'connect', which likely handles a different action.
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 instructions on when and how to use the tool: log in via browser, copy token, and either add to server config for permanent access or pass as a token parameter for session login. It also mentions calling with no args to get the login link. This leaves no ambiguity about usage.
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.