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 indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context: config-based tokens are permanent and non-expiring, while token-based logins via this tool are session-only. It clarifies the token acquisition flow (browser login, copy token) and the two call patterns.
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 moderately long but every sentence provides essential guidance: the overall purpose, the permanent configuration option, and the session-based login flow. It is structured into readable clauses with clear instructions, though it could be tightened into more discrete sentences.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary usage scenarios: obtaining a link with no args, authenticating with a pasted token, and the permanent alternative via config. It doesn't explicitly state return values or error behavior, but the complexity is low and the instructions are adequate.
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 provides no description for the token property (0% schema coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the token parameter is a JWT to be pasted and that calling with no arguments returns a login link. It also explains the config header alternative, adding complete semantic meaning.
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 this tool handles authentication for IDE agents ('log in in the browser, copy the access token'), identifying the login flow and token acceptance. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'connect' tool, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 usage alternatives: recommends adding the token to config for permanent connections and using this tool for session-only login. It also defines when to call with no args (to get a link) versus with a token (after user pastes). This is clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.
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 distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, the QSA consultation, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is no ambiguity between them.
Names mix languages (English vs. Portuguese) and conventions: verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version, receita_pj_qsa_consultar). No consistent pattern is followed.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the majority are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated domain of 'Receita PJ QSA + Participação'. The set feels bloated with infrastructure controls rather than focused on its purpose.
The domain is served by only a single tool (receita_pj_qsa_consultar). There are no other operations like listing, pagination, or historical data, leaving the surface severely incomplete for a dedicated company data server.