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 include idempotentHint=true, and the description appropriately describes a state-changing auth operation without contradiction. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on authentication failure, whether sessions persist across restarts, or any rate-limiting behavior with the config header approach.
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 packs substantial guidance into one dense paragraph that includes a colon, parentheses, and multiple clauses. It's slightly long but every piece serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded with a clear action verb.
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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential flows comprehensively. It explains both config-based permanent auth and session-based token auth, though it could have briefly noted the response behavior.
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 coverage is 0% and there's only one optional parameter, but the description thoroughly explains the token parameter's purpose, format ('<jwt>'), and usage context. The description provides more than enough compensation for the sparse schema.
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 explains the authentication flow with specific actions ('log in in the browser', 'copy the access token') and distinguishes between permanent config-based auth and session-only token auth. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 clear context on when to use this tool (for authenticating in IDE agents like Cursor) and how to use it in different modes (with token, no args). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling tools (connect, marketplace, etc.) are clearly distinct contexts, and the tool's purpose is well-scoped.
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 set mixes one domain-specific tool with several overlapping platform utilities. marketplace duplicates report_bug, while connect, authenticate, and toolkit_info all touch connection/auth status, making it unclear which tool an agent should call first.
Names are readable and all lowercase snake_case, but they do not follow one pattern: authenticate and connect are bare verbs, marketplace and toolkit_info are nouns, and removebg_remove is a brand-style imperative. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Seven tools is a reasonable raw count, but the server's scope is unfocused: only one tool actually performs the 'Remover Fundo' domain work, while the rest are platform meta-tools, and marketplace alone bundles many subactions. It is slightly more than needed for the stated purpose.
The core background-removal flow works for URL-hosted images with basic options, but the server lacks local-file input, batch processing, richer output controls, and a clear remove.bg-specific configuration surface. The platform side is fairly complete, but the domain side has notable gaps.