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 indicate idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds context about session-only login and the two modes (token vs no args). It could disclose how the session token is stored or what happens on invalid token, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 a single, dense sentence that packs a lot of information. It front-loads the purpose and then covers the permanent vs session distinction. Slightly convoluted with the 'Best' phrase, but still efficient and readable.
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 one-param optional tool, the description covers the main flows well: getting a link and submitting a token. It does not describe the output schema, but no output schema is provided. It also doesn't mention error cases, but for an auth tool this is reasonably 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?
The schema has no description for the `token` parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by specifying it as a JWT, explaining that it is optional (call with or without args), and how to obtain it. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 states that the tool handles authentication by accepting a JWT token or returning a login link. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying MCP.AI for IDE agents, and the verb 'authenticate' plus resource 'access token' makes the purpose unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly explains when to use the config header (permanent) versus the tool (session-only), and that calling with no args starts the login flow. This gives clear context and alternatives, which is exactly what is needed.
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 tools are mostly distinct: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, and the sanctions lookup each serve different purposes. However, connect and toolkit_info both provide status-related information, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use lowercase English words with varied patterns (single verbs, noun, verb_noun), while the sanctions tool uses Portuguese with an underscore-separated phrase. No consistent verb_noun or camelCase pattern exists.
With 7 tools, the count is within the typical reasonable range. The platform management tools are appropriate for a marketplace/infrastructure server, though only one domain-specific tool is present given the server's name.
The platform management capabilities (auth, connection, marketplace, introspection) are fairly complete, but the sanctions-specific functionality is extremely limited — only a single consult tool, with no additional operations like batch lookup, list sanctions, or detailed reporting.