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?
Beyond the idempotentHint, the description explains the lifecycle of the token: a permanent connection via config header vs a session-only login when pasted. It also clarifies that calling with no args returns a login link, adding useful context not captured in 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 dense paragraph with three sentences. It conveys necessary information but includes external setup advice (config header) that could be considered outside the tool's immediate scope, making it slighty verbose. Still, each sentence carries value.
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 simple schema and lack of output schema, the description covers the main call patterns (no-args and token). However, it does not explicitly describe the response format, success/failure indicators, or edge cases like invalid tokens, which would be helpful for an auth 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 only lists an optional 'token' property with no description. The description compensates by explaining the token is a JWT pasted by the user and that omitting it (no args) retrieves the login link. This gives clear meaning to the parameter and the no-arg case.
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: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and authenticate for IDE agents. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents) and the action, making it distinct from generic 'connect' or other tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 instructions on when to use each call mode: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header... for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.' This clearly explains alternatives and the best practice.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, CPF query, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between any of the tools.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are single verbs (connect, authenticate), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), one is a noun phrase (toolkit_info), and one mixes Portuguese and English in an unusual order (receita_pf_consultar). The lack of a clear pattern hurts predictability.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for this server, which appears to be a general MCP platform toolkit with a single domain-specific CPF query tool. The count is neither too thin nor bloated, though the mix of platform admin tools with one domain tool is slightly unusual.
For a server named 'Receita Federal PF', the only actual domain operation is a single CPF status consultation. There are no other tax-related operations (e.g., CNPJ queries, tax debt checks, or receipt management), leaving significant gaps for anyone expecting a comprehensive Receita Federal integration. The platform admin tools are complete, but they don't fulfill the apparent domain purpose.