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?
Description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains the trade-off between permanent (config header) and session-only (token) authentication, and that calling with no args returns a link. Annotations already declare idempotent, and the description reinforces it by indicating that both methods are safe to repeat. No contradiction.
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 many clauses, but it's front-loaded with the key action and provides necessary alternatives. Slightly long but not redundant.
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?
The tool has one optional paramtons and no output schema alert. The description explains the two usage modes and the permanent config option, covering the complexity well. It's complete 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?
Schema defines only token (string) with no description. Description explains its usage: paste the JWT token for a session-only login, or omit to get the link. That's essential meaning beyond schema. Since schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), description fully compensates.
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 authenticates a user for MCP.AI IDE agents, with a specific verb ('authenticate') and resource (IDE agent access). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on token-based auth vs other account operations. The alternatives (config header vs session token vs link request) are specific and actionable.
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 when-to-use guidance: recommends the best method (config header for permanent connection) and alternative (paste token for session-only). It also states when to call with no args to get a linkressive. This is clear usage context with alternatives.
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.
The sole domain tool is clearly distinct, but authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info overlap around connection status and authentication state. The marketplace tool also absorbs meta-actions like bug reporting and versioning, adding further potential for misselection.
Tool names mix terse lowercase verbs and nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) with one Portuguese snake_case domain tool (registradores_info_conta_consultar). There is no consistent naming convention or language pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable total, but most are platform/meta utilities rather than domain capabilities. The count is not excessive, though the set feels padded relative to the server's stated Registradores purpose.
The advertised 'consulta' operation is present, but no related capabilities exist such as checking prepaid balance, listing available Registradores queries, or managing account data. For a single query endpoint this may suffice, but as a server it is minimal.