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?
It discloses the authentication flow, the difference between permanent and session-only connections, and the fact that calling with no arguments returns a link. The annotations (idempotentHint, non-destructive) do not contradict the description and the text adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those hints.
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 dense but every clause adds useful information, and it is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It avoids filler while covering the permanent setup, session-only flow, and no-args behavior in a compact form.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains how to obtain and supply the token. However, it does not specify what the tool returns after a successful token-based login or how errors like invalid tokens are surfaced, which would make it fully complete.
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%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining the optional token parameter. It does this well, defining the token as a JWT access token and clarifying that omitting it requests the login link.
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 states a specific action and resource: logging in to MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser access token. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling calculation/tooling tools and explains the two usage modes (token paste vs. no-args link request).
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 gives explicit instructions for when to use each mode: add the token to server config for permanent non-expiring access, paste it via the tool for session-only login, or call with no args to get the login link. This is actionable and removes ambiguity about invocation.
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 calculo_* tools are separated by legal scenario, but several overlap in the generic task of correcting overdue amounts with indices and interest (calculo_atualizar, calculo_aluguel, calculo_pensao, calculo_fgts, calculo_restituicao_inss, calculo_rmc_rcc). Platform tools also overlap: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, so an agent could easily misselect for a generic monetary-correction request.
The calculation tools follow a strong calculo_<area> pattern and platform tools use simple English verbs, with consistent snake_case throughout. The main inconsistency is the mix between Portuguese calculation names and English platform verbs, plus grammatical variation such as calculo_atualizar versus calculo_indice versus calculo_salario_minimo.
22 tools is already on the heavy side, but the bigger issue is scope: the server is named 'Revisão de Contrato Bancário' yet only a few tools are actually banking-contract related. Most calculators target unrelated legal domains like criminal sentencing, divorce, labor, FGTS, INSS, and the marketplace/admin tools add further unrelated surface area.
For a banking-contract-review server, the set lacks obvious companions such as tariff/fee analysis, detailed financing scenario comparison, insurance/consignment breakdowns, or full settlement-planning support. The many unrelated calculators do not fill the gaps in the core banking domain.