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?
With annotations indicating idempotent and non-destructive, the description adds useful behavioral details: returning a link when no args, using a JWT token for session-only login, and non-expiring header configuration. No contradictions.
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 front-loaded with the purpose, then explains methods in a structured manner. A bit long but each sentence adds 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?
For a simple authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers usage modes and token semantics sufficiently. Missing some details like response format, but not critical.
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 description fully explains the optional 'token' parameter: it is a JWT for session-only login, and omitting it returns a link. This compensates for the 0% schema 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 identifies the tool's purpose: authentication for IDE agents. It explains the login flow and token handling, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'connect'.
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 clear context for when to use (for IDE agents needing auth) and gives two usage modes: permanent via header config or session-only via token. Does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use.
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 distinct purposes, but `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection status, which could cause confusion. The domain tool `registro_pf_ar_consultar` is clearly unique.
Names mix single verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), a noun (`marketplace`), and compound forms (`report_bug`, `show_version`), plus an inconsistent underscore-heavy domain name (`registro_pf_ar_consultar`). No clear naming pattern.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, and the platform utilities earn their place alongside the single domain operation. The count is slightly high for such a narrow domain, but not excessive.
The domain surface is severely limited: only `registro_pf_ar_consultar` provides the core data lookup, with no other domain-related operations (e.g., different lookup keys, batch queries, or data explanations). The platform utilities are complete, but the server's stated purpose is the Argentina PF data, which is under-served.