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 mark the tool as idempotent and not read-only. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining that the config method yields a permanent non-expiring connection, while the token method is session-only, and calling with no args returns a link. These behavioral nuances help the agent anticipate outcomes.
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 two sentences but packs in multiple instructions and alternatives. It front-loads the purpose and uses disambiguation between methods, though it could be slightly tighter. Overall, it is readable and not overly verbose.
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 no output schema, the description covers the main usage modes and the link behavior, but it doesn't specify what the token-based call returns (e.g., success or error) or how errors are handled. This leaves some ambiguity, but for a simple authentication tool it is minimally sufficient.
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 merely lists token as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully explains the parameter: it is a JWT, optional, and determines whether login is session-only or if no args returns a link. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
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 as handling authentication for MCP.AI, with specific actions like logging in via browser, copying tokens, and configuring headers. It distinguishes between two modes (server config vs session token) which adds specificity, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like '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?
The description provides explicit instructions on when to use each method: 'Best: add it to this server's config...' and 'Or paste it here for a session-only login', along with guidance on calling with token vs no args. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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.
Tools have clearly distinct purposes: auth, connection status, marketplace operations, data lookup, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. The only slight overlap is between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both reporting connection status, but they serve different contexts.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: mix of bare verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), English verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version), Spanish verb_noun (registro_pf_mx_consultar), and noun_noun (toolkit_info). Also, language is mixed (English vs. Spanish).
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the scope is broad and includes many platform-level utilities alongside a single domain-specific tool. The count itself is appropriate, though the mix feels uneven.
For the stated domain (Mexican PF data), only a single consultation operation exists, which is sufficient for public data lookup but lacks any additional operations. The platform tools (marketplace) provide indirect completeness by enabling other MCPs, but that shifts focus away from the server's primary name.