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?
Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses key behaviors: calling without args returns a login link, token use creates a session, and the config header yields a permanent non-expiring connection. This adds meaningful context about session persistence and the authentication flow.
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 somewhat wordy but well-structured, with clear sections for the two authentication modes. Every clause adds value, though it could be tightened slightly without losing information.
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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the purpose, the two authentication methods, the token format, and the return behavior (link). It lacks only minor details like error handling or prerequisites, but these are reasonably inferable.
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 provides no description for the 'token' parameter (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining it's a JWT to be pasted after browser login, and that omitting it triggers the link generation. This makes the parameter's purpose and usage crystal clear.
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's function: authenticating to MCP.AI by obtaining and using an access token, with explicit instructions for both permanent and session-based logins. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' through its token-focused login flow.
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 usage scenarios: configuring a permanent header vs. session-only token paste, and specifies when to call with no args vs. with token. However, it doesn't explicitly compare against sibling tools like 'connect', so there's no exclusion guidance.
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.
Authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info overlap on auth/connection status, and marketplace is a sprawling multi-action tool. However, the descriptions are detailed enough to help an agent distinguish them most of the time.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace mix with snake_case verbs like report_bug and show_version, plus the domain-specific sancoes_onu_consultar. There is no uniform verb_noun pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server's name suggests a sanctions domain while only one tool is sanctions-specific. The rest are generic MCP platform utilities, making the set feel padded and off-purpose.
The sanctions surface is just a single lookup tool with no additional operations like listing filters or batch queries. The other six tools serve platform management, leaving the domain coverage minimal and the server's actual purpose unclear.