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?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as 'permanent, non-expiring' vs 'session-only' login. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or other annotations, though it does not describe all edge behaviors (e.g., error cases).
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 dense but front-loaded with the purpose and login flow. Every sentence carries essential information, though the 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' prefix could be clearer for general context.
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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the authentication flow, token handling, and connection persistence. It covers all key aspects needed for correct invocation.
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 only 'token' with no description, but the description explains its meaning ('jwt'), optionality (call without args to get link), and usage scenarios. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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 purpose: to authenticate IDE agents via browser login and token. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by specifying the login flow and token handling.
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?
Explicit guidance is provided: when to use (for IDE agents), how to use (no args to get link, or with token), and alternatives (config header vs session-only paste). This fully covers when and how to invoke the tool.
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 platform tools have clear roles, but there is overlap between connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace—all deal with connection/installation status to some degree. The single domain tool is clearly distinct, but the marketplace's broad scope creates potential confusion.
Tool names mix English and Portuguese verbs/nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, sancoes_suica_consultar) with no consistent pattern. Some are camelCase, some lowercase, and one uses a Portuguese verb phrase.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated sanctions domain. This makes the set feel bloated for its intended purpose and dilutes the domain focus.
For the Swiss sanctions domain, only a single query tool exists—it checks names but provides no other operations like listing all sanctions or retrieving detailed entry information. The platform tools are comprehensive but irrelevant to the domain, leaving the sanctions surface minimal.